[ad_1]
Just as with nuclear technology and other examples before that in history, we will see an arms race for artificial intelligence between the US, China and to a slightly lesser extent, Russia. exciting, life-changing opportunity for the South African government, argues Andre Vlok.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already changing our world in the way we do business, the way we do war, our political strategies and the way we conduct our conflicts.
Regardless of our utopian or dystopian views of these events, there are a few existing AI realties that current political and business leaders should bear in mind, and act on with urgency.
A productive and responsible question for leadership globally is how to respond to these developments, and those that will be with us in the immediate future. The correct strategy in modern times is not to be in the right place only now, but to know when and where the next right place will be.
In the sense that we then use it, these AI conflicts can differ on a spectrum from open, direct conflict on battlefields, economic markets, employment drivers to more subtle, but no less real and threatening, conflicts battling it out for data control, the manufacturing and dissemination of information and knowledge, surveillance and how we understand and approach ourselves and our personal conflicts. At stake is not just financial outcomes, but the very shaping and maintenance of our realities. It is important to understand that anyone, any corporation, nation or entity that seeks to limit our rights, change our realities or take control of our freedoms is in conflict with us.
From this perspective, we find advanced technology already affecting our world, our work, our conflicts, and even the very concept of what it means to be human. Across the spectrum of the traditional AI concept, neuro-technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology, these influences are already indelibly stamped, not so much asking us for cooperation or acceptance or approval but in guiding our lives.
The AI Arms Race
I expect that, just as with nuclear technology and other examples before that in history, we will see an arms race for artificial intelligence between (at least) the US, China and to a slightly lesser extent, Russia. With data and computing power still being fairly predictive of success and growth in these fields, and the de facto blurring between the state and private actors in these areas, we are already well advanced in a form of neo-colonialism, where the three countries named above will soon have such an advanced position in AI that those left behind will simply never be able to catch up.
READ | AI photograph sparks fierce debate after winning award
It is naïve, in my view, and not borne out by the current global experience, to expect truly open borders as far as the meaningful benefits of AI are concerned, certainly not in anything worthwhile and outside the scope of apps that assists the more advanced countries with more data harvesting. As the saying goes, data is the new oil, and if we do not manage our current and imminent conflicts properly, most countries outside the big three will end up being more of the product than the producer, or even the raw material to make the product, if you will.
To see this growing conflict and to understand its tremendous implications and the urgency of its timescale is, therefore, a crucial first step that any smaller government should take. It would be naïve, and greatly irresponsible to miss the simple but strategically crucial point that all countries, will be competing with each other for a sufficient share of AI knowledge, equipment and benefits.
Positioning South Africa
Given our current political and economic crises, lack of effective political leadership and struggling economy, I believe that it is inevitable, and in fact already noticeable, that we will increasingly fall behind in this AI arms race. In fairness, I do not think that even at our best we would have been able to stay on the other side of the chasm. To expect a smaller country to keep up with the Big Three arms race would, from its inception, be a big and unrealistic expectation. But, as we see in our assessment there are certainly prudent and urgent strategies for such smaller nations to adopt.
This debate is not primarily one of political posturing, sovereignty or normal politicking. Getting the AI conflict, right or wrong, involves matters of the state’s security, ability to compete and to provide its citizens with the outcomes agreed to in their particular social compact. AI will change politics drastically, from deep fakes and influence, maybe in time calling into question the very need for politics in its present form. Politicians have a unique opportunity and responsibility to lead effectively, responsibly and urgently, and an entirely new way.
The benefits of AI, and the option of opting out
AI will affect and change just about all areas of human endeavour, from state security, internal surveillance and policing, warfare, global and international commerce, entertainment, personal interaction and job creation. This will manifest in government administration, internal security, system interfaces, service delivery and growing the economy. Artificial intelligence will not just drive economic growth but be part of the production and direction of goods, services and new benefits. Economies will be built on and around the application of this new technology and will include, as a separate but seamlessly integrated whole such other fields and disciplines as neurotechnology, robotics, biotechnology and nanotechnology. Being able to participate in these economies, both locally and internationally, will be a standard imperative, not an option.
The option to simply not participate, if anyone should be considering this, would simply not be feasible in the long run, for many reasons. Such a country would, within a short number of years, either find itself completely isolated economically or, at best, relegated to a minor consumer of these AI products, begging at the table of the countries that managed to thrive in this all-important conflict.
While conventional wisdom identifies data as the “new oil” and the direction of future economic growth and welfare, and a country can, of course, generate its own data to an extent, this completely misunderstands how data capitalism works and will furthermore fall flat at the first hurdle, in that without artificial intelligence interpreting and applying it, data is virtually useless.
The new state boundaries and the opportunities for private enterprise
As we can see already from global experience in even the last decade, the boundaries of state and private enterprise in developing and expanding enterprise, economic growth and new technologies worldwide have grown increasingly more blurred so as to be all but imaginary in some instances. The Chinese experience is an illustrative example of a hybrid of state and private interests when examining organisations such as WeChat, Huawei and TikTok. Western corporations like Google and Amazon show convincingly that private enterprise can develop and market global products as easily, at this stage at least, as a government can.
The responsibilities, challenges and opportunities that we then find resting on the South African government can, and should, be taken up by our private sector as well, either in partnership or as separate projects.
One of the ways in which a small country can improve its strategic position in the AI arms race is to form strong bonds with one of the AI superpowers, and to provide a supporting role in data provision, manufacturing of specific supportive products or services and with localised production facilities.
Specific strategies and considerations for the AI conflict
A state such as South Africa will be well advised to bear in mind a few of the current AI conflict realities in designing and pursuing their AI strategies and policies. The first would be the simple, observable fact that the regulation and control of creation, content, application and distribution of these technologies will, at the very least for the foreseeable future, be extremely difficult to manage and enforce, if at all. This global porousness may have strategic advantages but also tremendous disadvantages. There is, as one example, no practical way of forcing a group of states or organisations to share this technology equitably, or at all, or conversely, to limit such sharing.
READ | As Alibaba unveils ChatGPT rival, China flags new AI rules
While there are quite a few formal international documents and policy papers (eg at the level of the UN, EU and by all three the big AI powers) that seek to formalise and regulate such development, these documents are generally drafted as guide documents, and questions on jurisdiction, application and so on make them rather ineffective, at least for now.
A second guiding principle should be the observable fact that the speed of AI creation and deployment by far outstrips the ability, or willingness, of most governments to participate in or regulate such development. This, again, can be a factor that aids such a country or inhibits it, depending on the specific strategy applied.
Crucial debates
Artificial intelligence is already among us, ubiquitous and developing at a pace that will not wait for the slow learners. In the background looms the crucial debates about issues such as the universal basic income (UBI) concept in all its different manifestations, security and privacy concerns, and all the concerns flowing from what is in effect a potential neo-colonisation process.
Avoiding this is a naïve shirking of responsibility. Waiting for others to get into place and then starting to develop strategies and capabilities will be too little too late, leaving such a country permanently at a tremendous economic, political and security disadvantage.
This should be an exciting, life-changing opportunity for the South African government. They should grasp these new beginnings as a matter of the greatest urgency and importance.
– Andre Vlok is a negotiator, conflict and employment dispute specialist and based in Port Elizabeth.
*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers’ submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
[ad_2]
Source link