You versus the sum of human progress - AI is not the real competition

Seeing artificial intelligence as more than just machines

A year ago, I wrote an article about the state of AI and robotics and concluded that my three-year-old will grow up to face mass unemployment. But lately, I am having doubts about my future predicting prowess. It seems some of the lead indicators for bot-induced unemployment are still missing, or even going in the opposite trend. So I went back to the drawing board, hoping to prove that I misjudged the threat and my child will grow up just fine, doing stuff that AI can’t possibly compete with. Instead, I found the traditional humans vs machines narrative to be misleading, because what we’re really up against is…the sum of human progress.

You vs Other People (using tools)

From a sharp stick to a flying drone, we've been using tools to improve our lives and compete with each other for a long time. The ability to pick the right tool and use it skillfully is one of the most important factors in our development — as shown in the story of David and Goliath.

As modern-day workers, the ability to use our tools of the trade is still crucial to our labour market competitiveness. For many of us, we go to battle armed with digital technology — from pitching the winning presentation using Beautiful.AI (awesome .ppt alternative), to looking after the safety of your team with SafetyPin (yes, this is a shameless self-promotion for our app).

You vs the Machine

When it comes to AI, rather than seeing it as just another tool at our disposal, we often use the narrative of human versus the machine. Even the term “Artificial Intelligence” is based on the idea of simulating human intelligence, which compares the computer’s acquisition and application of knowledge with our own. Of course, the machines never wanted to compete with us; they have no desires, unlike those who created them…

You vs the Men with the Machines

YouTube recommended Garry Kasparov’s talk at Google to me a couple of weeks ago. A big part of the talk was about his famous matches against IBM’s chess-playing computer Deep Blue. YouTube’s AI predicted well and I watched the full 38 minutes. Not long into the interview, Garry talked about one of the biggest mistakes in his loss against Deep Blue — not reading the fine prints of the contract. So when Deep Blue crashed, IBM was allowed to reboot the computer (instead of being counted as a loss).

This made me realise that Garry Kasparov was not just up against a machine. He was taking on a global corporation, with teams of lawyers, computer scientists, and external experts. In this context, Garry Kasparov’s victory over Deep Blue in 1996 was as incredible as the battle of Gate Pā in 1864, where 250 Māori armed with a bold battle plan defeated 1,700 British soldiers armed with 17 bombardment machines. However, in the end, Māori tactical brilliance wasn’t enough to turn the rising tide of British colonisation. Similarly, Garry Kasparov's amazing chess experience couldn’t keep pace with the growth of computer science, and he lost to IBM/Deep Blue a year later.

You vs the Sum of Human Progress

You might be thinking that while a global corporation is tough to beat, it still doesn’t count as the “Sum of Human Progress”. You’re absolutely correct, IBM's Deep Blue doesn’t represent the “Sum of Human Progress”. But what about Google’s human crushing Go-playing computer AlphaGO? 

As an opponent, Deep Blue is like Ivan Drago from Rocky IV — raw brute force trained with the latest technology. However, it's still just a machine. It can still be defeated by a skilled and determined opponent like Kasparov (or Rocky). 

AlphaGo, however, is like Shang Tsung — a Mortal Kombat evil boss who can absorb his opponents' knowledge and skills to use against themselves; and then utilise everything he learned to defeat even more people (so he becomes stronger with each fight).

AlphaGo was trained by “absorbing” 30 million expert GO moves that humanity has to offer, then played millions of games against itself to further the skills it learned. In other words, AlphaGo Shang Tsung’ed all the best players we ever had, then created its own style based on…the Sum of Human Progress (in the game of Go). 

Wielding the Sum of Human Progress

After his loss to IBM, Kasparov helped to establish a new form of chess where each human player is assisted by a computer chess program. So like David’s slingshot, AI may be just another tool we use to compete against each other. But unlike the slingshot (or other tools), AI will offer its holder a much more powerful competitive advantage.

Going back to my original question — to what extent will AI threaten my son’s future employment opportunities? The impact will probably be low, if AI is widely distributed and easily accessible (like a maths exam where everyone is given a calculator). But if the Sum of Human Progress is only available to a few individuals/organisations…

*A big thanks to Ben Liebert for helping me to wrestle this out of my head - highly recommend him if you're looking for a techie that speaks human.