The argument that whatever is being chosen by leaders is for the common good, I think is as old as humanity. Sometimes when a band of hunter-gatherers choose to go north rather than south, that could in fact be exactly what they need to do. In many, many places, especially since the beginning of settled agriculture, leaders have also told us, toil harder and that's good for society. You see that already in some of the forerunners of modern economics who were amazingly revolutionary in their way of thinking.
In the Middle Ages, agricultural advancements enriched the nobility and the Church, which used the wealth generated to build themselves magnificent houses and cathedrals, while the peasants went hungry. The early years of England’s industrial revolution brought stagnant incomes for the working class. In recent decades technological advances have put untold amounts of wealth into the hands of the 0.1 per cent, while today, the sudden leap forward in artificial intelligence is threatening jobs and democracy through automation, data collection, and surveillance.
But does it have to be this way? MIT economist Daron Acemoglu has an alternative vision. His big idea: wrest control of AI from the hands of a few arrogant tech leaders and empower society instead. Is technology too important to leave to the billionaires? Can AI really be democratised? Listen now to this conversation hosted by Carl Miller, recorded in London.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices