Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1501168
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 11 JUNE 2023 9 INTERVIEW printing press… the future is now advance rather rapidly, over time. And if today's ChatGPT can already threaten jobs in the creative industries... what will tomorrow's 'smart technology' be capable of doing? Well, some people have been raising the question, re- cently, that – with newer ver- sions of ChatGPT (especially, ChatGPT4) - we may actually be witnessing the 'emergence of intelligence', right now. Because that's what we're after, at the end of the day. That, given this body of accumulated knowledge... 'new knowledge' emerges from it: which is how our own brain works, after all. But recent studies by Stanford University have concluded that there is no such 'emergence' re- ally happening. In other words: there aren't any processes and mechanisms, going on, which we are not understanding. So that's why I tend to dismiss people who say: 'We're moving towards sentience', and stuff like that. We're not, at the moment. Now: I'm not saying we might not get there, in the end. But with our current technology, I think we are still very far away from achieving that level of actu- al intelligence. Nonetheless: millions of peo- ple around the world today are genuinely concerned that AI might sooner or later 'take their jobs'. And even with its current levels of intelligence: ChatGPT is already replacing human employees in certain industries (such as the media; and espe- cially copywriting, translation, etc)... Well, those people SHOULD be worried, quite frankly. But it still doesn't mean that there is any 'intelligence', within the AI itself... Ouch! OK, point taken; but... isn't there also a human dimen- sion, in all this? If those peo- ple are right to be concerned: doesn't that also mean that AI – even with its current limitations – is indeed a 'threat' (if only at this level)? Let me put it this way. At the moment, I'm doing a study about the future of education and work. A few months ago, I interviewed an investment banker in Toronto: who told me something which set me think- ing, at the time. He said: 'Listen, we do not em- ploy juniors anymore. Because the same stuff can now all be done by AI: maybe better, and almost certainly cheaper...' And we're seeing this in all as- pects, everywhere. Some com- panies are even reporting up to 40% performance improvement, because their staff are using ChatGPT. So, I think it's a trans- formative technology; which will radically change the way in which we operate; and how the world works. Basically, we're at that moment in time, when change is imminent; and I'm sure there were plenty of other similar moments in history, too. Think, for instance, about the invention of the printing press. That was another 'transforma- tive technology', which democ- ratized reading, and learning, and so on... Yes, and it also put a lot of me- diaeval monks and scribes out of work.... [Laughing] That, too! There were probably monks having the same conversation we are having today, back in the Middle Ages! Joking apart, however: while I understand that technological advancement is inevitable – probably, even 'unstoppable' – aren't we also rushing into it a little blindly? In 'The Time Ma- chine', for instance, H.G. Wells envisaged a future where the human race splits into two – one of which subspecies (the Eloi) being basically 'useless': their over-reliance on technology having rendered them incapa- ble of actually 'doing anything', for themselves. Is something similar already happening, to- day? Aren't we becoming too 'over-reliant' on technology, for our own good? I know where you're coming from and I appreciate it. But I think that history shows us oth- erwise. The most classic exam- ple, perhaps, is the 'automated teller machine' (ATM). When they were introduced, back in the 60s or 70s, people thought that it was the end of the banking system, as we knew it. No more 'bank clerks': you would end up just speaking to machines... Well: that prediction wasn't all that far off, was it? In Malta, banks like HSBC are now clos- ing down their local branches... OK, but that's a policy of that particular bank; and I can't really comment about it. Statistically, however, it remains a fact that more people were employed by banks AFTER the introduction of ATMs, than before. Even to- day, 40 years later: the human element still remains an impor- tant component, in the banking sector. Having said that: if you look at things like 'Revolut', for exam- ple. Now, I think that IS creating a new kind of banking]. In fact, I can tell you about a personal experience of mine, if you don't mind... Sure, go ahead. Now: I am a Revolut user, my- self... but I only ever really use it when I'm abroad (on the basis that, if something were to hap- pen, I'd much rather lose my Revolut card, than my credit card.) In any case: last October, I was in Portugal for a conference... but when I tried to use Revolut to pay a restaurant bill: my card was declined. I tried to contact Revolut's customer care depart- ment; but no answer whatsoev- er. Luckily, I had other cards on me, so paying the bill wasn't the problem. The problem was that later on I received a message from Revolut telling me that my card was being 'reviewed'; and that I myself was being 'assessed'. And then, a few days later, I re- ceived another message telling me: 'Listen, we can't provide you the service any longer'. Basically, they had decided to terminate my account. And to this day, I still have no idea why... What do you think happened, though? The only thing I can imagine is that, most likely, an algorithm flagged me, and said: "Maybe he's not spending enough; or he's only using it abroad, in 'high risk situations'." To be honest, however, I just don't know. And this is the part that actu- ally worries me, in all this. It's not whether we're becoming too reliant on technology... it's whether we are believing AI sys- tems too blindly, when it comes to taking decisions that are going to affect people's lives. What worries me is - and this has been quite discussed, in re- cent years - the lack of what we call 'Explainable AI': whereby the AI not only takes a decision; but also gives a reason WHY it took that particular decision. So that then, of course, humans can check on it afterwards... Ultimately, you always have to keep humans in the loop; be- cause these are things which will affect people, in the end… But that's only one part of my concern. The second part is that I think we are still lacking the sort of basic rights that should accompany AI: such as – in my own case – the right to full dis- closure, on how a decision about my future was actually taken. Just a second ago, you said that 'humans have to be kept in the loop'. Shouldn't that also apply to all the jobs that will be no doubt be replaced' by AI, in the near future? What about the human element in other sec- tors, apart from banking? Well: that concern has always existed, to be fair. New technol- ogies have, after all, displaced humans from the workplace be- fore. But let's not forget that new technologies also create new jobs. In fact, if you look at the World Economic Forum 2020's report on the future of jobs: while it estimates that AI will displace around 80-85 million jobs globally, it also predicts that AI will create around 96 million jobs, over the same time period. Having said that, though: the problem which we will face, as a society, is that you can't just take those 85 million redundant workers, and simply re-employ them somewhere else. They will need 'upskilling', 're-training', and so on... and we also know - because it's already happening today - that some of those people will simply not make the transi- tion, whatever you do. And there's a very good local example of this, that only I got to know about recently. Appar- ently, there's a new factory that's just opened in Malta, which con- forms to a trend that we've been seeing for a while now, in other parts of the world. In the Far East, it's referred to as 'lights-out manufacturing': you don't need any lights, as the factory is fully automated. All the work is done by robots. And this new local factory is one of the first – if not the first – of this kind in Malta. It doesn't need any lights; nor any manual la- bourers, either. But then, they needed to em- ploy 120 engineers: because, you know, somebody had to take care of all those robots. So, as you can see: what's really chang- ing, it's not so much the 'amount' of jobs that are being created, or lost. It's the kind of work that is needed: which is more special- ized... and therefore, to a certain extent, more problematic. Because let's face it: to create a factory worker, you need... I don't know, maybe a couple of weeks/months of training. To create an engineer, on the oth- er hand, you need three-or-four years of University. So that is the big challenge, which I believe we'll be facing in the coming years.