logo
How can Australians make sure AI delivers on its hype? By proudly embracing our inner luddite

How can Australians make sure AI delivers on its hype? By proudly embracing our inner luddite

The Guardian11 hours ago

If I hear another well-intentioned person justifying their support for the regulation of AI with the qualifier 'I'm no luddite, but …' I'm going to start breaking my own machine.
From ministers to union leaders to progressives watching from the cheap seats, there is growing recognition that untrammelled development of this technology carries significant risks.
But there is also a reticence to be seen as being anti-technology lest we are perceived as standing in the way of the productivity boom and consequent bounty of abundance that the boosters of these tools promise is just around the corner. After all, we aren't luddites.
The problem with being forced into this defensive mindset is that we misread the challenge at hand, which is not so much about the nature of the technology but the power dynamics driving this change.
This is where the luddites and their misunderstood resistances to the last big technological revolution, chronicled in Brian Merchant's ripping yarn Blood in the Machine, may help us think through our current challenges.
Here's the TLDR: in early 19th-century northern England, textile workers buck up against a new technology that automates their work and replaces well-paid skilled jobs with machines. When factory owners reject demands that the benefits of the new technology be shared, they gravitate around the avatar of young 'Ned Ludd' and begin breaking the new machines and burning down said factories. The resistance rages for five years until the British government deploys troops and criminalises their association, leading many of the rebels to be executed or transported down under. Having been crushed by state power, the luddites become a punchline for anyone who can't find the right wires for their laptop.
Maybe it's the residual bloodlines of some of those transported luddites but, according to KPMG research of 47 nations, Australians are in the bottom cohort when it comes to trusting AI systems. This is a trend picked up by the Guardian Essential report.
What's interesting is that as more people have begun using large language models including ChatGPT and Google Gemini, their concern about the risks of the technology have actually increased.
The Digital Rights Watch founder, Lizzie O'Shea, refers to this dataset as a valuable national resource; it puts the onus on those proposing change to show that the risks have been mitigated.
These risks take two distinct forms. The first is the existential risks of a sentient mind controlling the world, fighting wars and playing god. The makers of AI like to keep the focus here because it (a) proves how powerful their machines are; and (b) it pushes the discussion of harms over the time horizon.
But the second set of risks is more immediate: that the tools (which are built on stolen information) are being shaped by the same big tech companies that have wreaked their destruction through social media with so little regard for the end user. Only this time it's not the consumers but workers they have in their sights.
Over the past few weeks we have seen the bold prediction from Anthropic's chief executive, Dario Amodei, that half of all white-collar entry-level jobs are for the chopping block, while a study from MIT has found that the use of ChatGPT can harm critical thinking abilities.
Yet our business leaders are sharpening their pencils, claiming that the technology offers such a productivity bonanza that the only thing we have to fear about AI is fear itself; while the ascendant tech industry is using every tool in their arsenal to avoid the 'constraint' of regulation.
This is where the treasurer's newfound focus on productivity as a driver of national prosperity could have perverse consequences, particularly if it gets hijacked by tech and business interests that conflate head-cutting with working smarter.
Again, the majority of Australians are sceptical about the productivity mantra. When they hear that word they see cost-cutting rather than shared benefit.
These results show that if the government, business and the tech industry want us to embrace their future, they need treat us like the luddites we are.
It starts by tapping the thinking of the Nobel prize in economics winners Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, and recognising that productivity comes from giving workers new tools, connections and markets. While the stocking frame and spinning jenny of the Industrial Revolution were crudely extractive, other innovations including the steam engine opened up opportunity and possibility that drove prosperity and innovation for the next 200 years.
They also should recognise that where the holders of new technology overreach, resistance will be ongoing. While the luddites may have been defeated, their movement gave way to the first worker guilds that successfully fought for the laws that civilised industrial capital.
Finally, they must accept that when power is genuinely shared the benefits accrue in ways that sometimes are not even imagined at the point of connection.
The last great productivity surge in Australia was the product of the accord struck between the Hawke-Keating governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which helped to globalised the Australian economy while locking in social wage advances including Medicare and universal superannuation.
Likewise in this wave of change, the feedback loops between the makers and users of technology will ultimately create the value, so it only stands to reason those loops will be strongest when trust is high and benefits are shared.
Prof Nick Davis from the University of Technology Sydney's Human Technology Institute describes the AI challenge as being like physiotherapy after surgery: 'It only delivers if you put in the effort, follow the program and work with experts who know which muscles to strengthen and when.'
Placing Australian workers at the centre of the AI revolution, with a right to guide the way it is used, the capacity to develop and enforce redlines and guardrails on an ongoing basis is not some gratuitous nod to union power, it is the hard-headed path to national prosperity.
Proudly embracing our inner luddite and demanding a seat at the table is the surest way of ensuring that this wave of technology delivers on its hype.
Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential, a progressive strategic communications and research company that undertook research for Labor in the last election and conducts qualitative research for Guardian Australia. He is also the host of Per Capita's Burning Platforms podcast

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Chris Mason: Labour still has a big persuasion job ahead
Chris Mason: Labour still has a big persuasion job ahead

BBC News

time39 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Chris Mason: Labour still has a big persuasion job ahead

"I've not had as much quality time with my colleagues since the Brexit wars," a minister told me with a wry smile.A remark that gets to the heart of this benefits row within the Labour Party: this is a government with a big majority, that has already performed a big U-turn and yet is still involved in a big persuasion is not meant to happen, one year into government, with a working majority of prime minister himself will be getting stuck into some persuading today, making the case that these changes are, as he sees it, not only in keeping with Labour values but essential to ensure the long-term stability of the welfare if Monday's Commons statement from Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall was intended to reassure Labour MPs, it is an open question as to whether it worked."It turned a fair few colleagues off. I think it will get through, but it'll be close," said one MPs press Kendall on rollout of benefit changesWelfare cuts: What are the Pip and universal credit changes?What has been driving the rise in disability benefit claims?Faisal Islam: How much will U-turn on disability benefits cost?There has been plenty of talk of there being 40 to 50 Labour MPs who are opposed, but things remain the size of the working majority, rebels would need to amass around 80 of their colleagues to vote against the government to defeat them, everything else being a key factor could be how many choose to abstain in the vote on Tuesday Prof Philip Cowley of Queen Mary University of London notes that the biggest backbench rebellion Sir Keir Starmer has suffered so far is largest rebellion in Tony Blair's first year in Downing Street was 47 and also on the welfare state - over lone parent largest backbench rebellion for any governing party in 200 years was in 2003, over the Iraq the heart of plenty of the concern over these benefits changes is what is being proposed for the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) at the end of next November 2026, the plan is the eligibility criteria for the main disability benefit will be Labour MPs and ministers had hoped a review of Pip, conducted by Work and Pensions Minister Sir Stephen Timms and involving disabled people, would reassure colleagues the government's intentions were something they could over and over again in the Commons concerns were raised that the timeframe of the review - itself due to report in the autumn of next year - would mean it would be too late to have an influence on the eligibility criteria for Pip beginning that beneath that there is an underlying critique: that the reason the plans for late next year remain in place is because that way it makes it (a bit) easier for Chancellor Rachel Reeves' numbers to add up - and, to use the jargon, for the measures to be "scored" by the Office for Budget Responsibility when it produces its forecasts, which are so central to the government's management of the plenty of Labour MPs this is wrong-headed, topsy turvy and an increasingly hard-to-defend approach to it is also worth emphasising, as it always is when there is a debate dominated by noisy people, that there are quieter Labour MPs, many keeping their heads down right now, who find this whole row gratuitous and fundamentally naive - and, they argue, it is Labour's duty to grapple with a spiralling benefits Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves have long argued that Labour being seen as credible custodians of the economy is the building block upon which everything else is Chief Whip, Sir Alan Campbell, in charge of winning the vote for the prime minister, has issued a plea for unity - something that only happens when there isn't a surplus of it - and told Labour MPs they should "act as a team". The party, he said, would have to come back together after this difficult vote for will debate the plans all over again later, and the vote is expected early this even if the government does win, that won't be the end of the arguments and votes are expected in the next few weeks.

Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier
Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier

Leader Live

time40 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier

The new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (Firs) comes into effect from Tuesday, requiring anyone carrying out 'political influence activities' on behalf of a foreign power to register with the Government or face prosecution. The rules, which cover activities such as political communications or lobbying, were introduced in 2023 as part of efforts to strengthen national security amid concerns about covert action by foreign governments. Security minister Dan Jarvis said: 'We welcome legitimate engagement with all countries, but we will not tolerate covert attempts to manipulate our political system or society. 'The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme gives us the tools to confront growing threats to our national security, one of the foundations of our plan for change, without compromising the openness that defines our democracy.' The new rules also include an 'enhanced tier', which requires anyone working for certain states to declare any activity, not just political work. Mr Jarvis said: 'This is about creating accountability and visibility so that covert influence operations have nowhere to hide, and ensuring we have the tools to detect and disrupt them.' Failing to register with Firs carries a maximum sentence of two years, or five years for agents of states in the enhanced tier. So far, only Iran and Russia have been placed in the enhanced tier, with both nations accused of operating covertly in the UK to shape public opinion and intimidate opponents. But despite calls from some MPs to include China in the enhanced tier, Russia and Iran remain the only nations on the list. Beijing has been repeatedly accused of seeking to covertly influence British politics and academia. A 2023 report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee found China had engaged in 'aggressive' interference, including seeking to 'penetrate or buy academia to ensure that its international narrative is advanced and criticism of China suppressed.' Following the announcement in April that Russia would be included in the enhanced tier, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said it was 'astonishing' that China had not received similar treatment and accused the Government of 'prioritising economic links over national security'. At the time, Mr Jarvis replied that the Government had a 'consistent long-term and strategic approach' to the UK's relationship with China. He added: 'The Government's policy is clear – we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.'

Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier
Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier

Rhyl Journal

time42 minutes ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier

The new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (Firs) comes into effect from Tuesday, requiring anyone carrying out 'political influence activities' on behalf of a foreign power to register with the Government or face prosecution. The rules, which cover activities such as political communications or lobbying, were introduced in 2023 as part of efforts to strengthen national security amid concerns about covert action by foreign governments. Security minister Dan Jarvis said: 'We welcome legitimate engagement with all countries, but we will not tolerate covert attempts to manipulate our political system or society. 'The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme gives us the tools to confront growing threats to our national security, one of the foundations of our plan for change, without compromising the openness that defines our democracy.' The new rules also include an 'enhanced tier', which requires anyone working for certain states to declare any activity, not just political work. Mr Jarvis said: 'This is about creating accountability and visibility so that covert influence operations have nowhere to hide, and ensuring we have the tools to detect and disrupt them.' Failing to register with Firs carries a maximum sentence of two years, or five years for agents of states in the enhanced tier. So far, only Iran and Russia have been placed in the enhanced tier, with both nations accused of operating covertly in the UK to shape public opinion and intimidate opponents. But despite calls from some MPs to include China in the enhanced tier, Russia and Iran remain the only nations on the list. Beijing has been repeatedly accused of seeking to covertly influence British politics and academia. A 2023 report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee found China had engaged in 'aggressive' interference, including seeking to 'penetrate or buy academia to ensure that its international narrative is advanced and criticism of China suppressed.' Following the announcement in April that Russia would be included in the enhanced tier, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said it was 'astonishing' that China had not received similar treatment and accused the Government of 'prioritising economic links over national security'. At the time, Mr Jarvis replied that the Government had a 'consistent long-term and strategic approach' to the UK's relationship with China. He added: 'The Government's policy is clear – we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store