AI May Be Coming, But It’s Not Here Yet

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.

Dan Drezner mentions something today that’s close to my heart. It turns out that he’s been going to a lot of conferences lately and hearing a lot about AI:

There has been one constant running through all of them: people who want to sound savvy keep talking about artificial intelligence as the New New Thing….I confess to wariness about claims of technological game-changers. All too often, I hear colleagues reference AI the way that they would reference “globalization” or “Big Data” — terms so amorphous that there is no consensus about the definition.

On that question and many others, I strongly recommend perusing Michael Horowitz’s essay in the Texas National Security Review, which makes some very useful distinctions. Horowitz points out that AI is more of a continuum than a precise technology. He also acknowledges that the future of AI is far from clear.

This is important. As you all know, I’m a believer in the future of AI, but with a strong emphasis on future. That’s because AI doesn’t exist yet—at least, not in any form that deserves the name. There’s no question that progress is being made—computers writing sports reports, computers winning Jeopardy!, computers telling you where the nearest coffee shop is—but none of that is anywhere close to true human-equivalent intelligence.

To take one example of why this matters, economists often like to say that if AI were really going to put people out of work, we’d see it in the productivity statistics. After all, an economy with lots of AI would produces mountains of stuff without much human intervention, which means that productivity (stuff produced per person) would go up. But all you have to do is pull up the BLS statistics and you’ll see that productivity hasn’t gone up, which means that AI isn’t a threat to our jobs.

This is wrong because it’s backwards. What you should say is: productivity hasn’t gone up, which means there’s no true AI in the economy yet. And that’s correct. In fact, we don’t even have much in the way of “almost” AI. It’s more like “getting closer to almost” AI. As Horowitz says, AI exists on a continuum, and what we have today isn’t very far along.

This level of technology is still useful, but not likely to put many people out of work. Not yet, anyway. But it will. Driverless cars, for example, aren’t true AI either, but in a few years they’ll almost certainly start taking jobs away from a lot of truck drivers. It’s something to take seriously.

But it’s not here yet, no matter how many times you hear marketing boffins buzzing about it. We’ve still got a ways to go.


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