Smart Machines Are in Our Future, Whether We Like It Or Not

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As the world becomes more complex, it rewards people who can deal effectively with complexity. So does this mean that income inequality is inevitably going to increase, as highly-educated elites gain a bigger and bigger advantage over the less educated? Ryan Avent, responding to Brink Lindsey’s new ebook, Human Capitalism, isn’t so sure. After all, the Industrial Revolution produced such high economic growth that even as less skilled workers replaced artisans, they ended up earning more money:

Now it could be the case that that era was the abberration and the more recent period of rising skill premiums and increased inequality the norm. But it’s also possible that just as an earlier era of rising complexity erased the premiums earned by skilled craftsmen and transferred them to human cogs, a new period of innovation in machine thinking could wipe away the premium now commanded by many of today’s craftsmen—doctors, lawyers, designers, engineers, and so on—and reallocate the gains to the hoi polloi.

It seems to me that the nature of the complementarities between human workers and an enormously complex economy are incredibly uncertain and difficult to predict. I also imagine there are many possible equilibria out there, and that which of those obtain is not unrelated to things like bargaining power. So while I endorse many of Mr Lindsey’s conclusions and policy recommendations, which include things like a focus on early childhood education, I’m less sure that past economic performance is indicative of future results.

I agree, especially with Ryan’s point that there’s a very high level of uncertainty about how this will play out. In fact, I’m mainly linking to this for exactly that reason: because I believe it’s something that deserves a lot of thought. Regardless of whether or not true artificial intelligence is in our near future, computer automation is bound to increase significantly, and in labor markets this is almost certain to shift even more bargaining power toward the owners of capital (who will own the machines) and away from unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

At least, that’s probably what will happen by default. If we don’t want it to happen, we’re going to have to think long and hard about how to stop it.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend