Re: "What I expect to happen next is that US companies will largely ignore the EU laws, European citizens will want to use the American services anyway, and then EU authorities will come under pressure for a face-saving compromise."
It didn't happen with the cookies. US users get the cookie pop-ups, not just the EU users. If US companies will ignore the EU laws, they get fined by the EU (if they still want to operate there). EU gains significant sums from American companies thay way. Overall, this is a pretty terrible strategy by the EU - but it's what's happened so far.
Re: "Because at the end of the day AI is going to complement physical human labor more than it will substitute for it."
The more conventional story is that machines start off complementing human abilities when they are not very competent and then substitute for humans when they become sufficiently competent and powerful. That's pretty much the opposite of your claim. So: it seems to me that your claim here is likely to prove to be mistaken.
I disagree with your prediction about the regulatory gap between the EU and the US. What happened in privacy is exactly the opposite of what you described: US companies have essentially adopted EU privacy laws globally because this is easier than deploying different privacy models. The issue of data transfers you referred to is still an issue of contention but that’s not due to US companies ignoring EU privacy laws but due to different perspectives on national security. The same convergence is going to happen in AI and you can see this already: There were reports this week that Google‘s launch of Bard would be postponed in Europe but no indication that they were abandoning plans to launch it here.
Thank you for responding to my (multiple) questions! On the issue of job creation, I predict that the opposite of the usual “technology advancement --> job growth” model: I think this time around, whether it happens quickly or slowly, AI will eliminate a lot of high-paying white collar jobs, which will negatively impact our economy, as people who used to be big spenders on lots of different goods and services will now be on welfare. Additionally, on a macro level, one side effect of white collar automation that I predict is that the companies seeking to drive up profits by automating everything and eliminating employees may find that they have far fewer customers for their products/services, especially in spaces which are lucrative at the moment, but people can easily go without (luxury clothes, video games/gadgets, beauty treatments, etc.) Will be interesting to see what comes of that, assuming I’m right about all of this.
Yeah, I’m pretty pessimistic about AI, but I hope I’m pleasantly surprised by what these next years/decades hold!
You say: "That’s basically what has happened in the privacy arena over the last decade, and frankly it hasn’t been good for the EU’s technology sector."
And yet before you state: "And I don’t think Donald Trump would have been elected president in 2016 without Twitter and Facebook."
I would like to better understand your position regarding the big tech/small citizens rights conundrum.
Because I'm mostly fed up with the 100% laissez-faire attitude that's been on display since the beginning of the internet era and I'm not sure I'm interested in reading about that as a good thing. Thank you.
I'm having trouble seeing how stricter privacy regulations would have changed the impact of social media on politics. And while I don't love the moderation decisions Facebook and Twitter have made over the last decade, I don't really think it would be an improvement (or consistent with the First Amendment) for the government to regulate how their newsfeed algorithms work.
So no regulation for AI companies would be the way to go in your opinion?
And it would be for the greater good? Or for the good of four-five companies (being generous here, quite likely)?
By now there's a LONG list of situations for the US has opted to not regulate because "freedoms" to the detriment of themselves and the rest of the world. Pollution, smoking, climate change, privacy, now AI. But every time feels like the first time. :-D
Tim, my main reaction to the mailbag was I'm surprised you think Donald Trump wouldn't have been elected without Facebook and Twitter. He had plenty of coverage in New York Times headlines and other mainstream media.
I'm quite confident that the changed media environment of 2016 made it possible for Trump to win the Republican nomination. It's hard to imagine somebody like Trump winning the Republican nomination in 1996.
I think that's partly due to social media, partly due to cable news, and partly due to the much more competitive and traffic-hungry online news industry. But I think social media drove online news to a large extent. When I was at Vox in 2015 we'd pay attention every time Trump tweeted something controversial. His tweets helped Trump keep himself constantly in the conversation, which I think helped him win the primary.
A similar process (more focused on reddit than Twitter) almost enabled Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination in 2016.
Interesting. I wonder if there are studies that measure the value of the news coverage (and Twitter coverage) that candidates receive. These outlets sell ads, so the coverage could be valued.
Could you tell if Trump tweets were routinely driving entire news cycles by causing articles to be written in prominent media outlets?
Excellent post, thank you.
Re: "What I expect to happen next is that US companies will largely ignore the EU laws, European citizens will want to use the American services anyway, and then EU authorities will come under pressure for a face-saving compromise."
It didn't happen with the cookies. US users get the cookie pop-ups, not just the EU users. If US companies will ignore the EU laws, they get fined by the EU (if they still want to operate there). EU gains significant sums from American companies thay way. Overall, this is a pretty terrible strategy by the EU - but it's what's happened so far.
Re: "Because at the end of the day AI is going to complement physical human labor more than it will substitute for it."
The more conventional story is that machines start off complementing human abilities when they are not very competent and then substitute for humans when they become sufficiently competent and powerful. That's pretty much the opposite of your claim. So: it seems to me that your claim here is likely to prove to be mistaken.
I disagree with your prediction about the regulatory gap between the EU and the US. What happened in privacy is exactly the opposite of what you described: US companies have essentially adopted EU privacy laws globally because this is easier than deploying different privacy models. The issue of data transfers you referred to is still an issue of contention but that’s not due to US companies ignoring EU privacy laws but due to different perspectives on national security. The same convergence is going to happen in AI and you can see this already: There were reports this week that Google‘s launch of Bard would be postponed in Europe but no indication that they were abandoning plans to launch it here.
Thank you for responding to my (multiple) questions! On the issue of job creation, I predict that the opposite of the usual “technology advancement --> job growth” model: I think this time around, whether it happens quickly or slowly, AI will eliminate a lot of high-paying white collar jobs, which will negatively impact our economy, as people who used to be big spenders on lots of different goods and services will now be on welfare. Additionally, on a macro level, one side effect of white collar automation that I predict is that the companies seeking to drive up profits by automating everything and eliminating employees may find that they have far fewer customers for their products/services, especially in spaces which are lucrative at the moment, but people can easily go without (luxury clothes, video games/gadgets, beauty treatments, etc.) Will be interesting to see what comes of that, assuming I’m right about all of this.
Yeah, I’m pretty pessimistic about AI, but I hope I’m pleasantly surprised by what these next years/decades hold!
I think you will be!
You say: "That’s basically what has happened in the privacy arena over the last decade, and frankly it hasn’t been good for the EU’s technology sector."
And yet before you state: "And I don’t think Donald Trump would have been elected president in 2016 without Twitter and Facebook."
I would like to better understand your position regarding the big tech/small citizens rights conundrum.
Because I'm mostly fed up with the 100% laissez-faire attitude that's been on display since the beginning of the internet era and I'm not sure I'm interested in reading about that as a good thing. Thank you.
I'm having trouble seeing how stricter privacy regulations would have changed the impact of social media on politics. And while I don't love the moderation decisions Facebook and Twitter have made over the last decade, I don't really think it would be an improvement (or consistent with the First Amendment) for the government to regulate how their newsfeed algorithms work.
So no regulation for AI companies would be the way to go in your opinion?
And it would be for the greater good? Or for the good of four-five companies (being generous here, quite likely)?
By now there's a LONG list of situations for the US has opted to not regulate because "freedoms" to the detriment of themselves and the rest of the world. Pollution, smoking, climate change, privacy, now AI. But every time feels like the first time. :-D
I'm not necessarily against regulation, I just have yet to see regulatory proposals that seem likely to be helpful.
Tim, my main reaction to the mailbag was I'm surprised you think Donald Trump wouldn't have been elected without Facebook and Twitter. He had plenty of coverage in New York Times headlines and other mainstream media.
I'm quite confident that the changed media environment of 2016 made it possible for Trump to win the Republican nomination. It's hard to imagine somebody like Trump winning the Republican nomination in 1996.
I think that's partly due to social media, partly due to cable news, and partly due to the much more competitive and traffic-hungry online news industry. But I think social media drove online news to a large extent. When I was at Vox in 2015 we'd pay attention every time Trump tweeted something controversial. His tweets helped Trump keep himself constantly in the conversation, which I think helped him win the primary.
A similar process (more focused on reddit than Twitter) almost enabled Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination in 2016.
Interesting. I wonder if there are studies that measure the value of the news coverage (and Twitter coverage) that candidates receive. These outlets sell ads, so the coverage could be valued.
Could you tell if Trump tweets were routinely driving entire news cycles by causing articles to be written in prominent media outlets?
It is precisely regulation that would enable four or five companies to dominate. Especially if open source AI is outlawed.