Despite official optimism, some of us are sceptical about claims of the benefits of new technology and its potential to transform society.
Indeed, sceptics do not see artificial intelligence (AI) as some magic wand that can easily change our lives for the better.
As one of these doubters, and at the risk of being criticised as a Luddite, I take a cautious, sceptical approach to AI.
We need first to examine the technology within the power structures and inequalities in and between societies.
I make no apologies for taking this approach. The utopias envisioned by technology creators and marketers are far from most people’s reality and will not be realised for a long time.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
It certainly will not exist if we do not critically examine contemporary societies, including Malaysia, and overcome the inequalities that have been created and perpetuated by those in power – primarily states, transnational corporations and the “military-industrial complex”.
Every time there is technological development and change, we hear futurists and optimists, like Alvin Toffler some decades back, waxing lyrical about the benefits for everyone.
Even before that, influential American communication researchers Wilbur Schramm, Daniel Lerner and Everett Rogers, after World War Two and during the Cold War, wrote fervently about the advantages of radio and television -new technologies then – for the development of “third world” societies. The technology was seen as revolutionary, capable of transforming these societies, mostly newly independent former British, French, Spanish and Dutch colonies.
One infotech scholar, Ithiel de Sola Pool at MIT, even came up with a book called Technologies of Freedom (1983).
A homogeneous society?
The major problem with these optimistic views is that they assume a uniformity in many societies that just does not exist. A Unicef study in May found ongoing poverty in Kuala Lumpur’s low-income households after Covid, with half of the children eating fewer than three meals daily.
The access these marginalised groups have to any emergent or new technology, including AI, is just not equal.
Access is often non-existent in many places worldwide. Global figures show that 712 million people (nearly 9%) of the world’s population live on less than $2.15 a day. Around a quarter of the world’s population, or 1.9 billion people, live in difficult and impoverished situations.
These figures remind us of the ongoing inequalities that exist side by side with the developments and excitement over AI.
This does not mean we should dismiss AI as another fad and disregard it altogether. Social inequalities should enjoin us to go beyond the many party tricks, parlour games and technical advantages that AI could give us as journalists and academics. We need to go beyond this to address a wider level of concerns.
Recommendations, laws and charters
Several initiatives are being developed to establish ethical guidelines for AI.
A 2021 Unesco draft guideline “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” recognises “the potential AI systems have to embed biases, contribute to climate degradation, threaten human rights and more”. Such risks associated with AI, the guideline continues “have already begun to compound on top of existing inequalities, resulting in further harm to already marginalised groups.”
Unesco’s guideline typically and unsurprisingly, contains four core values – respecting human rights and dignity, ensuring diversity and inclusiveness, having peaceful and interconnected societies, and ensuring a flourishing environment and ecosystem.
All very humane and progressive, as Unesco recommendations tend to be.
Not to be outdone, the EU came up as early as this past May – following final approval from some EU member states – with its AI Act. On the basis of this act, “A complete set of regulations – including rules governing chatbots – will be in effect by mid-2026, according to the European Parliament, which noted each EU country will establish its own AI watchdog agency”.
Independently, on 10 November 2023, RSF and 16 mainly civil society groups that defend journalism and the media came up with the Paris Charter on AI and Journalism. To summarise, the charter “defines ethics and principles that journalists, newsrooms and media outlets around the world will be able to appropriate and apply in their work with artificial intelligence. It was created by a commission initiated by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and chaired by journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa”.
All these initiatives – from the detailed and elaborate Unesco global standard on AI ethics to the proposed EU law on AI, to the most recent Paris Charter – suggest strongly that the framework and safeguards are already in place to be applied globally.
As the Unesco document stresses, its recommendation is exceptionally applicable because of “its extensive Policy Action Areas, which allow policymakers to translate the core values and principles into action with respect to data governance, environment and ecosystems, gender, education and research, and health and social wellbeing, among many other spheres”.
Political will and leadership
Having all these good intentions, policy recommendations, laws, even a charter, is great on paper. It makes everything look so neat, with all things falling into place, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
Flea-bitten journalists and academics will tell us that despite the optimism, the journey is unlikely to be smooth. The implementation of the guidelines, the enforcement of the laws and the honouring of charters is fraught with difficulties.
Within Malaysia, political leadership, political will and political priorities will play crucial roles that could affect implementation and enforcement.
Howard Zinn was right when he wrote “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”. In a country like Malaysia that lacks good governance and reeks of corruption within an unethical environment, it is not going to be easy being ethical in a largely unethical world.
This does not mean it cannot be done and that we, especially journalists and academics, should not make an effort to develop an ethical environment and ethical practices. We should, but we need to go in with our eyes wide open. We must be ready to face a fight – or even many fights.
Indeed, we need to realise that our neoliberal environment, a political system that advances division and discord, and a largely placid and “tidak apa” (apathetic) fraternity of journalists and academics will make our efforts and the challenges we face that much harder.
Rom Nain
Co-editor, Aliran newsletter
30 September 2024
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Universal Basic Income (at a level our country can afford) and “conditional cash transfers” to alleviate – somewhat – the jobs that will be eliminated by AI.