To be or not to be … accel or decel? That is the question.
"'Move fast and break things' - if you never break anything, you're probably not moving fast enough." Mark Zuckerberg
A young Mark Zuckerberg is seen talking to college students …. "a lot of times people are just, like, too careful. I think it's more useful to, like make things happen, and then, like, apologize later, than it is to make sure you dot all your i's now, and then, like just not get stuff done." Early Facebook investor Roger McNamee observed that “It wasn’t that they intended to do harm so much as they were unconcerned about the possibility that harm would result” [1]
'Move fast and break things' has become a widespread mantra in the technology industry and its latest manifestation is in the effective accelerationist movement (e/acc), which advocates an explicit pro-technology attitude and argues the case for technological development at full speed, without impediment. Central to effective accelerationism is the belief that propelling technological progress at any cost is the only ethically justifiable course of action.
Its proponents believe that artificial intelligence-driven progress is a great social equalizer which should be pushed forward. They see themselves as a counterweight to the cautious view that AI is highly unpredictable and needs to be regulated, often giving their opponents the derogatory labels of "doomers" or "decels" (short for deceleration)[2]
In his Techno-Optimist Manifesto, Marc Andreessen, of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz makes the case for effective acceleration and claims that statements to the effect that technology takes jobs and has increased inequality are lies … “we are being lied to”. The truth, in his opinion, is that “our civilization is built on technology. Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realization of our potential”.
History has shown is that there is money (lots of money) to be made at the cutting edge of technological innovation – more innovation, more money. And venture capitalists sit on the crest of each wave. A headlong rush into the next technology is good for business, its good for the bank balance – especially if one can privatize the upside and nationalize the risks or collateral harms caused by algorithmic bias, misinformation and widespread job displacement.
Molly White has written a powerful piece critiquing the effective altruism and effective acceleration movements (‘Effective Obfuscation” November, 2023[3]), suggesting they merely provide fig-leaf cover for the VC industry's traditional motivations.
In their book ‘Power and Progress – our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity’, Acemoglu and Johnson argue that American workers used to have access to good jobs, which in addition to paying decent wages, provided job security and career building opportunities, But these jobs have largely disappeared for workers without a college degree, due to technology … automation and computerization. People without a college education in the US have seen their real earnings decline since 1980. They became the post war dispossessed. And it has not been without consequences.
Politics in the US recognizes this phenomenon. In 2016 Bill Clinton suggested that ‘Make America Great Again’ used as a campaign rallying cry, was a message that promised the dispossessed to "give you an economy you had 50 years ago, and ... move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down". And it is not restricted to the US. There is a rise in populism/nationalism in Europe, South America and beyond that taps into the same dissatisfaction. And let’s not talk about Brexit! We shouldn’t pretend that technological advances directly benefit everyone – they don’t. Adherents to the e/acc point of view are not going to pick up the pieces and face the consequences – that is for someone else to worry about
“There's no economic law that says that when technology advances everybody necessarily benefits, some people, even a majority of people, could be made worse off”. Erik Brynjolfsson (Professor and Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-centered AI)
We (Adam & David) are certainly not against advances in technology – we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, 21st century versions of Luddites. Technology has had an amazing (and, on the whole, positive) impact on society, and will continue to do so. And anyway, trying to stop the advances in technology is a fool’s errand – it will happen whether we like it or not. However, if the effective accelerationists charge anybody who worries about the collateral harms of new technology as a ‘decel’ then it’s a label we will have to wear. We are excited by the possibilities that AI will bring – and we are still only in the foot hills of this technology BUT to borrow a line from Spiderman’s Uncle Ben “with great power comes great responsibility”*
*There are many historical manifestations of this quote including: The Committee of Public Safety during the French revolution 8 May 1793 "Ils doivent envisager qu'une grande responsabilité est la suite inséparable d'un grand pouvoir" and British MP William Lamb proclaimed that "the possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility" during an 1817 debate over the suspension of habeas corpus).
On the theme of techno responsibility …in a recent lecture at University College London, Demis Hassabis co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind argued that – if built responsibly – AI could be used for the overwhelming benefit of humanity.
“AI has incredible potential to help with humanity's greatest challenges. It will be one of the most transformative and beneficial technologies we will ever invent”
Acknowledging the potential downsides, he went on “We have to build AI responsibly and safely and make sure it's used for the benefit of everyone to realise this incredible potential […] we should not move faster and break things […] this technology is just too important and too transformative to use that approach. Instead, I would advocate more of a scientific method, where we carefully consider each step, do controlled experiments, and try to understand how these things work and the unintentional consequences ahead of time […] It’s not possible to get that perfectly right, but with something moving this fast and this close to the frontier, there are always going to be mistakes. We should try and mitigate many of those risks ahead of time.”
In the continuing rush to the latest new new thing …it is important not to lose sight of, and actually have a dialogue about the risks and threats wrapped up in the latest AI advances – with perhaps more focus on the more prosaic challenges of job displacement and its impact on society than world-dominating evil super-intelligent AI, which seems to take up a lot of bandwidth.
“The challenge of AI is so big and the development is exponential, which means there is no luxury to put it aside and focus on something else” Marija Pejčinović Burić, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
“We cannot embrace [the effective accelerationist agenda] with AI. It’s too dangerous,” Gina Raimondo, the US commerce secretary, explaining the establishment of an AI Safety Institute.
[1] /to.pbs.org/2Q56Oez
[2] MacColl, Margaux (7 October 2023). "It's a Cult': Inside Effective Accelerationism, the Pro-AI Movement Taking Over Silicon Valley". The Information. Archived from the original on 20 November 2023. Retrieved 20 November 2023
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20231127152854/https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/effective-obfuscation
 | A guest post by
|