Digital Tech in a Capitalist World: the implications of AI and the Internet of Things
I think it’s uncontroversial to say we live in a digital world: with “around 3.010 billion internet users” it certainly feels like it. I agree with fellow blogger Maria when she says we would be “lost without” digital technologies; the utilisation of digital mediums in communication, entertainment and education, is testament to their ubiquity. Unsurprisingly, this new world has unique societal implications which bring up difficult ethical debates. However, I would argue that the debates we have and the anxiety we feel, isn’t because of technology: it is because digital technology is embedded in our topsy-turvy economic system. In this capitalist world, the phrase ‘nothing comes for free’ is blatantly true, meaning the only reason technology is in our hands is because businesses found a way to make it profitable.
Tech out of Control?
Digital technology can take on a different look and feel than what was intended by the creators, purely because somebody had to make money out of them. Even Facebook founder Sean Parker worries that the platform has deviated from its intended form and is now a tool for “psychological manipulation” at the whim of targeted micro-advertising. The way we feel played by social media into buying things is not a consequence of the digital technology itself, but because of the business model that emerged to ensure its survival. The two biggest ethical debates on the horizon are the ways the business models applied to Artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) will reshape our working society and contest our individual rights of privacy.
Will AI’s reorientation of work be for better or for worse?
AI, understood as the stimulation of human intelligence into machines, challenges the future of work as we know it. AI which recognises speech, languages and performs routine tasks with repeat precision threatens the future of many contemporary job types. The introduction of new technology into the workplace has reignited old fears, reminiscent of the concern artisans had for factories, that the machines will take ‘our’ jobs.
Robot Receptionist
However, “AI is not a job killer, but rather, a job category killer” because innovation “displaces” workers who perform tasks that can be done cheaper by technology. The capabilities of AI are anticipated to erode the need for human “middling” jobs, like those that require basic cognitive skills but yet are routine. Think receptionists, couriers and bookkeepers. Over a third of employees think robots will take their jobs within three years, signalling a sense of anxiety, leading to the question of whether AI benefits us as workers. The World Economic Forum warns that, should we not adapt to the capitalist application of AI, we could see increased unemployment and inequality, arising out of the difference between safe and at risk jobs. Therefore, our capitalist digital world forces us to change with it. Since the demand for interpersonal jobs in healthcare, education and management sectors are to increase by 24%, workers are forced to retrain or face displacement by AI. Furthermore, workers must acquire increasing levels of digital skills if they are to harmoniously labour alongside AI. The emerging business of AI (emphasis on business) rather compels us to be different humans.
Where is the ethical line between privacy and profit in the ‘Smart Home’?
The IoT is on the cutting edge of consumer issues. The ability for objects like “kitchen appliances, cars and baby monitors” to be digitally connected means that the concept of the ‘smart’ home can be realised. However, the necessity that the smart home must make money, has heightened the tension between privacy and profit.
Surveillance Capitalism
Shosanna Zuboff in her book “Age of Surveillance Capitalism” exposed the new business model being applied to products within the IoT industry. She analysed that in the IoT ‘value’ for firms comes from observable behaviours by ourselves, the users. Digital technologies extracts this behavioural information as ‘behavioural surplus’, because it is the excess not directly used to improve our experiences with the specific technology. That surplus is used to sell to advertisers to help them understand us, so that they can more precisely advertise their products. The most disturbing example I have come across is the utilisation of internet-connected toys in order to spy on children’s behaviour so that firms could better understand what products to target to parents. The idea of your childhood teddy as a capitalist surveillance device is likely to make you shift uneasily in your seat because it is an intimate intrusion of our perception of privacy rights.
A new privacy balance
Privacy is important because it links to many aspects of human satisfaction, since it allows a space to be free of judgement, giving us a bubble to think autonomously. 75% of our Medium peers feel unsafe in the digital world, suggesting we need a new settlement to strike an equitable balance between our rights to privacy and the capitalist imperative to profit from digital technologies. There is an ambiguity amongst Medium contributors over the transferability of ‘real world’ rights onto the digital sphere, indicating that we need to rethink whether we are comfortable with the ethical consequences of the currently permissible digital business models.
Conclusion
It is true that we are living in a digital world, with the future of AI and the full potential of the IoT on the horizon, but we are not dealing with the implications of the technology per se. Instead we are having to confront the implications which arise due to the capitalist application of digital technology. AI is only an ethical concern because our system dictates that we need waged jobs; AI threatens that forced necessity. The IoT is only an ethical problem because the business model requires an intrusion into our privacy. Instead of being a pessimistic realisation, I see this as an opportunistic conclusion: digital technology is not the thing that is causing this ethical anxiety, it is the way these technologies are forced to be because of our economic structure. This means we don’t need to be scared of a digital future: digital is good, but it needs to be applied differently.
Self-Reflection
Stylistic Development
Firstly, I would like to address how beneficial the assessment formats have been to my overall development. My degree has mainly required writing in an academic style or formal, direct style of policy briefs; by having to write blogs I have had to challenge myself to rethink my written communication. I have had to reflect on my audience, and consider, in a different way, whether I have written engagingly rather than just analytically. I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing other students’ posts to see how they drew the line between being entertaining enough for a blog, but critical enough for a university assessment. Learning about the PechaKucha presentation style was also interesting, and has come at a helpful time since I am closer to entering the labour market which will implore me to de-specialise my communication form.
Broadening my Conceptualisation
Last year I took the UCIL module on Cybersecurity which gave me a very detailed look at the logistics and ethics surrounding the protection of information in a digital space. However, this detailed concern for online security, led me wanting to explore other issues we confront and anticipate to confront in digital spaces. ‘Digital Society’ has allowed me to reflect upon other aspects which make up digital citizenry. Coming from a Social Sciences background it’s been interesting to see how digital technologies have affected both business and the arts. It is clear from digisoc2 posts, such as Billy’s, that digital engagement is a skill which every business and artist needs to develop, since it is truly make or break. This course has made me understand how digital technologies are important to organisations and people’s offline material lives.
Thinking Differently
The module that has made me think the most has definitely been the IoT week. For the last three years I have been studying PPE and wish to do a Political Economy MA, so to conceptualise the IoT alongside the Industrial revolution was particularly refreshing. It is easy to view the adoption of an IoT device, like an Alexa, as just a fun gizmo. The IoT module, alongside reading Zuboff’s “Age of Surveillance Capitalism” last summer, has made me think differently about “gadgets’. I have been able to think of these technologies as being components of a wider economic, social and political movement. It has made me recognise that we are on the cusp of a historical moment, and that students, like me, in 100 years from now will be discussing this time period as much as I discuss the original Industrial Revolution.
