If it’s not one nightmare—read: elections—it’s another. Read: Artificial Intelligence. And I don’t mean that fake diploma your colleague has proudly displayed in his larger office with windows across the hallway from your smaller office without windows. Of course, you don’t need blast curtains. So there’s that.

It’s October, White House Scary Report month, and the Administration didn’t disappoint. Mid-month, the President National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology (Megan Smith, et. al.) released Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence. After the Cubs won Game 2, I put Defying Hitler aside last night to read the report.

A MUST-READ

This report is an absolute must-read for anyone genuinely interested in the advent of Artificial Intelligence (if that’s you, you’ve already it read it, most likely). It’s a must-read for anyone who’s so far missed the AI train and wants to catch up—it walks us through the history of AI very nicely, concisely. It’s a must-read for Neo-Luddites. It talks about machine learning, deep learning. It talks about teaming humans with machines and applying AI for the good of the people (Long Live People!)

The Executive Summary explains that the report “surveys the current state of AI, its existing and potential applications, and the questions that are raised for society and public policy by progress in AI.” Well, that’s not so bad. Glad somebody’s looking at the big picture.

It continues, “The report also makes recommendations for specific further actions by Federal agencies and other actors. A companion document lays out a strategic plan for Federally-funded research and development in AI.” That sounds good—a vision for the future and some sort of productive Federal contribution to the whole thing. Then, there’s trouble.

“Additionally,” the report warns (yes, warns), “in the coming months, the Administration will release a follow-on report exploring in greater depth the effect of AI-driven automation on jobs and the economy.” In other words, the economic issues are so huge that a paragraph, a section, even an appendix won’t be enough to cover it all, to treat it fairly. So, it’s probably not-good news wrapped in a lot of up-beat rhetoric to make it all easier to swallow.

Bottom line: our Artificial Intelligence world is on its way, and it isn’t all Rosie-the-maid-on-The Jetsons.

ON THE UP SIDE

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is good. That’s how the report really begins. AI could very well solve huge national and global problems related to natural resource production and consumption and health and hunger issues. “One area of great optimism about AI and machine learning,” the paragraph Applications of AI for Public Good begins, “is their potential to improve people’s lives by helping to solve some of the world’s greatest challenges and inefficiencies.” That sounds pretty good. It can help us stupid people stop doing the same stupid things again and again, expecting different results.

Further, AI is new, really uncharted territory, relatively speaking. So there’s a host of opportunities, many which we probably can’t yet imagine, that are opening up. Already, AI has “dramatically increased the need for people with relevant skills to support and advance the field. An AI-enabled world demands a data-literate citizenry that is able to read, use, interpret, and communicate about data, and participate in policy debates about matters affected by AI.” One thing is clear. The Administration is taking an active role in helping ensure everything from our global markets to Just War Theory aren’t caught with their proverbial pants down.

For all the good the report very objectively and generally appropriately emotionlessly announces, at the same time it’s a warning. Perhaps a dire warning. At least for some of us.

ON THE DOWN SIDE

That’s not even a glass-is-half-full reading of the report. The report is telling us, AI is coming, it’s coming fast, it will very probably come faster and faster, accelerating at an exponential rate, and it’s going to change our world as we know it. “Many have compared the promise of AI,” the report simultaneously acknowledges and implicitly agrees, “to the transformative impacts of advancements in mobile computing.”

Remember feeling good because AI would “increase productivity and create wealth”? Well, here’s the rest of that sentence: “but it may also affect particular types of jobs in different ways, reducing demand for certain skills . . . .” Further, “AI-driven automation will increase the wage gap between less-educated and more educated workers, potentially increasing economic inequality.” Good, there’s not enough of that already. The quick answer to that sort of looming, revolutionary development is . . . wait for it . . . public policy.

According to the report, “Public policy can address these risks . . . .”  Oh, good. Public policy will make sure “workers are retrained and able to succeed in occupations that are complementary to, rather than competing with, automation.” The report continues, “Public policy can also ensure that the economic benefits created by AI are shared broadly, and assure that AI responsibly ushers in a new age in the global economy.”

“. . . benefits created by AI are shared . . . . AI responsibly ushers in a new age . . . .” I swear I’m not being hyper-sensitive, and I’m not being hyper-critical. I do like reading between lines and making the implicit more explicit. But there’s little mystifying about that sentence, which makes me think this whole report is written by some AI entity already in charge. AI is ushering in a new age? That’s humanizing it. And the AI machine somehow believes that public policy is the phrase that soothes us humans.

ALL FOR IT, BUT . . .

It’s coming, AI. I’m all for it. Might as well be. It’s the next big-leap evolution of humanity (I appreciate the irony in that). Fortune Magazine’s Barb Darrow concludes in her review of the AI Report, “Unless people can be retrained to make a living in this new world, all that AI-fueled productivity could be for naught. If only a small percentage of the population earns enough to have disposable income, who’s going to buy all these AI-enabled goods and services?”

Late last night I was listening to some distant radio talk show. The moderators were discussing the pros and cons of the North American Free Trade Agreement, trying to separate fact from the fiction about NAFTA. Indeed, it has changed the face of American industry. For all the partisan-political-hatred the acronym NAFTA inflames, in the end, it seems, NAFTA has actually created more jobs, and it’s annually putting billions and billions of dollars into the pockets of Americans, on average.

But in creating more new jobs, one of the experts soberly explained, it’s gobbled up a lot of old jobs, and for the man or woman getting the pink slip, new jobs don’t matter much, because they don’t have the skills to do them. And the billions and billions of dollars annually, on average, means something like $100 more for each of us (human Americans) a year. That’s less than ten dollars a month. It’s a pack of cigarettes. Er, uh, I mean, it’s a few Red Bulls.

IN THE END

In the end, the commentator acknowledged all these advantages. But he concluded, You know, I think I’d trade my $100 a year to see Detroit the powerhouse it once was.

I know I would.

Related News

Ed Ledford enjoys the most challenging, complex, and high stakes communications requirements. His portfolio includes everything from policy and strategy to poetry. A native of Asheville, N.C., and retired Army Aviator, Ed’s currently writing speeches in D.C. and working other writing projects from his office in Rockville, MD. He loves baseball and enjoys hiking, camping, and exploring anything. Follow Ed on Twitter @ECLedford.