Individual Freedom and Global Companies
Can Government Help Innovation?
Ulrike Franke’s essay that heads up this week’s ‘Essays of the Week’ starts with a striking sub-heading:
We are living through a change in the balance of power between states and the private sector. The implications for modern conflict are vast.
This seemingly inherent contradiction between massive global technology platforms, measured in users or revenues, and nation-states is much discussed in this newsletter. Whether or not the companies align with national foreign policy, they cannot be ignored.
Her piece charts the impact of Starlink, Amazon’s AWS in Ukraine, and Drones from DJI, a Chinese company.
We are increasingly living in a world, in which not only the most important technological breakthroughs are happening in the private sector (think ChatGPT), but one in which capabilities immediately needed for warfare are in the hands of the private sector. The primary responsibility of the state – to keep its citizens secure – is now increasingly dependent on goods and services that only companies have. While these companies still need to be headquartered somewhere geographically, they increasingly consider themselves as international, not linked – and responsible – to one state.
This fact might underline why Hilary Clinton and Gavin Newsom both call for state power to be used against tech execs in this week’s ‘Post of the Week.’
This bifurcation and associated tensions are likely to grow as nation-states' innovation capability falls far behind that of private companies.
Tomasz Tunguz's Essay—Writing Software for Robots, Dan Shippers ‘Why Generalists Own the Future, and Jeffrey Becker’s The AI Native Founder all indicate that innovation is accelerating and, in the process, changing what humans do and do not do.
The Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed that the world is in a constant state of change. This is not a deterministic change created by some non-human and inevitable “technology.” The change is the consequence of billions of human decisions and the application of human intelligence to problems that need solving. Everything that ‘is’ is in the process of changing. Nations are not an exception. Human work is also going to change. AI software will address specialism more than generalism.
领英推荐
In 2024, nations employ hundreds of millions of people, many of whom are employed to preserve or enforce the status quo. Many do fabulous work maintaining the rule of law or democratic choice. Others face off against positive change that benefits humanity.
Changes put stress on systems every day, and resistance to change is expected. But in 2024, the focus of resistance to change has increasingly taken the form of demonizing technology, especially AI, or demonizing the individual freedoms that technology permits. Joanna Chiu discussed the Chinese Government’s efforts to block ChatGPT, which is a great example. But Hilary Clinton’s call to jail social media users for “disinformation” is, too.
These new words in our vocabulary related to speech are worrying indications of a desire to restrict individual freedom. ‘Misinformation’ and ‘Disinformation’ started as terms of abuse, used to weaponize debate with a kind of bullying mentality. Even ‘lies’ are used in that way. Now, we are moving to a discussion of criminalizing these things.
Actual misinformation and disinformation, and yes, lies, can be combated by debate and facts. Resort to criminalizing speech is an autocratic move that will not help us bring about a better human future but a controlled and restricted one.
United Airlines' embrace of Starlink is a real signpost of what we can expect. Norway’s announcement that well over 90% of all new car registrations are electric vehicles is another. Discord’s implementation of end-to-end encryption also indicates the direction in which the change will occur.
The goal of all human progress is to improve life. 2024 seems to mark a moment when those improvements can accelerate and reach the globe. Most can benefit everybody. AI in education is a great example. However, fear-driven national bureaucracies can and will seek to slow down or stop many resulting individual freedoms.
Companies can be flawed, as can their leaders, but using science to deliver gains seems tied to corporations more than nations. The tail and the dog may be reversing.
Hat Tip to this week’s creators: @RikeFranke, @danshipper, @Kyle_L_Wiggers, @Coldeweys, @ArjunKharpal, @jeffbeckervc, @ttunguz, @steph_palazzolo, @amir, @joannachiu, @DanMilmo, @mgsiegler, @mikeisaac, @natashanyt, @danbladen, @I_Am_NickBloom, @kingthor (https://mastodon.social/@Thorin), @legind, @fredericl, @usepylon, elonmusk, @stillgray, @EndWokeness, @HillaryClinton, @GavinNewsom