AI could lift productivity and living standards, but without stronger government leadership, workers risk missing out on the benefits at the same time as bearing the costs.

Part 1 yesterday discussed how AI could restore productivity growth and living standards, but the challenge would be to ensure that the benefits were fairly shared. Today, Part 2 discusses these distributional risks, and the adequacy of the Government’s AI strategy.

Yesterday we concluded that the Government faces a dual challenge. It wants to facilitate the adoption of AI so as to lift future economic growth and relieve cost-of-living pressures, while at the same time avoiding mass unemployment and ensuring a fair distribution of the benefits from AI.

As Nobel laureates, Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson say, if we want to avoid a major fallout of displaced workers and consequent hardship for them at least, then we must ensure an institutional set-up that induces “a direction of technology that creates new tasks and jobs for workers of all skill levels and an institutional framework that enables workers to share productivity increases with employers and managers.”

The Government’s strategy

About a month ago, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, outlined the Government’s strategy for encouraging the take-up of AI in Australia’s interests. In addition, the ministers most directly responsible, Tim Ayers and Andrew Charlton, released a National AI Plan.

However, the emphasis in both Albanese’s speech and in the AI Plan is mainly on how to promote the take-up of AI, while minimising energy and environmental costs to the community, and minimising other risks,........

© Pearls and Irritations