ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REGULATED: Catching sight of how Regulation

could be exercised and the specific case of preventing job rates depletion

Abstract: IPSUM LOREN

Keywords: LOREN IPSUM

Sergio Botinha
Junho, 2018 Commented [A1]: Não deveria estar em inglês?

Belo Horizonte - UFMG

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - CONCEPTUALIZING

Part of the difficulties encountered by scholars when studying or analyzing the

phenomenon of "Artificial Intelligence" (or simply, "AI") has to do with the concept.
This article will not dwell on that, it will rather present the topic as an introductory input
only. As SCHERER points out, unfortunately, it appears that there is no widely
accepted definition of artificial intelligence1. JOHN MCCARTHY, one of the founding
fathers of the AI discipline, uses the following delineation:

"artificial intelligence" refers to machines that are capable of performing tasks that, if
performed by a human, would be said to require intelligence." 2

JERRY KAPLAN challenges3 this approach as a simplistic one. To use Human

Intelligence as a benchmark for defining AI would be a flawed slant since there are a
number of acts that a machine performs that we, humans, cannot do at all. Also, some,
as NICOLELLIS4 , emphasize that a machine would never be able to completely have
the abilities of a human mind because they lack the morphology and the ability to
receive inputs from nature as a human brain would, and lack the ability to experience
the rearrangements, the flow and the continuum that are experienced by us.

But ALAN TURING, who coined the term "artificial intelligence", did that also
simplistic. He defined AI as the process or performance of a machine "acting
humanly"5. TURING did not pay attention if acts were actually human, not on the
capability for computers to exactly reproduce human practices, but rather the external
manifestations of the machine processes as being something that could be done by a

1
Scherer 359
2J. MCCARTHY, M. L. Minsky, N. Rochester, and C. E. Shannon, "A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research
Project on Artificial Intelligence", 1955, www.formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html
3KAPLAN, 2
4
Kios Press, Natal, Montreux, Durham, São Paulo, 2015 NicolelisTHE RELATIVISTIC BRAIN - HOW IT WORKS
AND WHY IT CANNOT BE SIMULATED BY A TURING MACHINE
5
20. A. M. Turing, Computing Machinery, and Intelligence, 59 MIND 433, 442 (1950).
human. He worried, then, not on a mimetic ability of a machine, but on the fact of the
system to produce humanly rational results.

In fact, when one studies the concept of intelligence by itself, it can be seen that there
are many types of intelligence, and people would have many of these kinds combined in
different levels. An average man can perform a myriad of tasks with average ability, and
a certain machine can do just one single task, in an "intelligent way", and in a manner
that could be simply inconceivable to a Human being, but still, the machine acted with a
typical humanly rationale.

And although there is no widely accepted definition, SCHERER identifies that the most
used approach concentrates on this "concept of machines that work to achieve goals —
a key component of "acting rationally", as envisioned by TURING. The approach
indeed tends to be uncomplicated and satisfactory, because, really, it does not matter
whether what a machine or system does is vividly human, but rather whether it is a
rational and effective achievement out of that artificial mechanism. This is the same
understanding KELLY KEVIN6 also arrived to.

The fact that machines can perform "human-like" acts that use rationale and are
"humanly" goal-oriented, independently of their matching exactly with human neural
systems or not, is what is a phenomenon that needs attention, together with all
consequences that derive from that reality.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE AI UPRISING

6
KEELY KEVIN, PAGE 2 THE MYTH OF A SUPERHUMAN AI
Artificial Intelligence as a matter of systemic study comes from the 1950s, but we are
seeing, undoubtedly, a renewed focus on it. This is due to the fact that, as KAPLAN7
states, we have available today more sophisticated probabilistic methods, increased
availability of data, cheap and enormous computational power and the existence of a
greater number of IT environments connected. There is now, scalability on the field,
available to an even higher number of players. AI is not Sci-Fi anymore.

Many examples are available: from AI medical diagnosis to automated legal analysis,
from big data for marketing to industrial robots and intelligent financial brokerage
services, almost every area of our society is being changed or improved through
Artificial Intelligence nowadays. Kiva Systems is a company bought by Amazon that
utilizes a fleet of robots to collect and retrieve packages in warehouses, in order to
handle the sales and shipping processes. Uber and Tesla are testing self-driving cars.
Online movie channels indicate to you what you may want to see next. Military Robots
can locate and kill enemies, without a hint of danger to one only soldier. Robotic
Surgeries are being done in patients with prostate cancer with higher accuracy.

AI is making energy smart grids even "smarter" in energy consumption.

Communication and information are being favored in a world with Artificial
Intelligence because people will read and be informed more of the topics they want to
be informed about. In many other areas, efficiency can be a goal attained by AI. Traffic
lights can only turn red when a certain number of cars on the intercession are coming
across. Sugar cane crops can be amassed by robots instead of humans. and computers
can be better and make faster decisions in stock trading than real person brokers. Again
in the health sector, a study from Stanford in 2016 showed that AI can diagnose lung
cancer using microscope images better than humans8.

And, apart from what we are already seeing now, there is a large avenue open for the
future. In health, for instance, if Artificial Intelligence is able to, as pointed by ERIK

KAPLAN 52
7
8
xxx
BRYNJOLFSSON and ANDREW McAFEE, help reveals relations between genes and
diseases, medicine as a whole can be revolutionized. To build on that, we have Moore's
law. Gordon Moore, co-founder of INTEL, wrote an article in 1965 in which he foresaw
the exponential growth in computational capacity. In summary, circuits would double
their capacity and power from time to time, in an exponential growth that would
extremely increase the power of electronic circuits.

ERIK BRYNJOLFSSON and ANDREW McAfee point out that ASCI Red, the first
computational program from the US Government, took USD 55 million to create the
first supercomputer in the world. The space needed for this computer was almost the
space of one tennis court. Today, chips are almost invisible and of incredible speed and
potency.

Although many scientists like to preview that this exponential growth is coming to an
end, these predictions have failed time over time according to BRYNJOLFSSON and
McAFEE. By all evidence available, computerized systems and robots are evolving
according to Moore's law in a broad range of fields as we speak and can disrupt
processes even more.

Robots are increasingly being granted more spatial and visual talents. It is said that
when robots evolve on sensitive capabilities (e.g. the ability to "see" and "listen" the
world around and move with better spatial orientation), more disruption and innovation
will happen. One limitation to robots is indeed the ability that we, humans, have to see
and have senses that help us move around without breaking every glass that is ahead.
Also, when robots respond better with logic and semantics tasks, they will be even more
useful. Disruption is not close to an end any time soon.

Then, we have quantum computers. Quantum computation uses concepts of quantum

physics to create incredibly potential systems in terms of processing capacity and speed.
Quantum computers would theoretically be able to solve problems much more quickly
than any classical computers. This is what we read when we enter on an IBM internet
portal:

"Quantum computers are incredibly powerful machines that take a new approach to
processing information. Built on the principles of quantum mechanics, they exploit
complex and fascinating laws of nature that are always there but usually remain hidden
from view. By harnessing such natural behavior, quantum computing can run new types
of algorithms to process information more holistically. They may one day lead to
revolutionary breakthroughs in materials and drug discovery, the optimization of
complex man-made systems, and artificial intelligence. We expect them to open doors
that we once thought would remain locked indefinitely"9

So, Moore's prediction of exponential growth of capacity for electronic circuits seems
with no end in sight. What AI can revolutionize in our society, now and in the future, is
not little, thus. That poses a number of questions for human science.

REGULATORY NEEDS – A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOSSOM?

Does Artificial Intelligence need to be regulated? If so, what specific areas need
regulation? What should be the regulation; who would implement it and how? These
questions arise in every area that promotes change to social and economic fabrics,
sooner or later and it would not be different for AI revolution.

There was a time when the vast majority of the public strongly defended that Internet
should be an environment without regulation. Then, civil life started to be majorly lived
on the internet, and the tide turned. How could an environment on where almost every
aspect of civilization is happening be without rules? Contracts are signed, people are

9
https://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/learn/what-is-quantum-computing/
hired and damages are inflicted over the internet. Goods are bought and elections are
decided there as well. Physical stores could not agree that only they should be paying
taxes, while e-stores would enjoy a free ride on commerce. We are now seeing an
increase in internet regulation, from civil rules, regulatory agencies’ norms, data privacy
laws, and taxation.

This discussion is a complicated one. We believe that if Artificial Intelligence poses a

significant danger to people with a certain type of use or generates a situation that
favors inequalities, if possible, it should be regulated. We also understand that this also
should not be a free ride for bureaucrats, while they would love that, we know.
Regulation restricts progress, enhance costs and slow down innovation. One of the main
concerns on Regulation is that it can hamper economic development. In brief, countries
that have stricter regulation block economic growth for their companies, which will
quickly change location, jobs, and revenue elsewhere and/or innovation will not appear
so easily. Difficult is how to define what should and what should not be regulated.

CALO manifested this way:

"It may not be wise or even feasible to pass general laws about artificial intelligence at
this early stage. Whereas it is very likely wise and timely to plan for AI's effects on
society, including through the development of expertise, the investigation of AI's
current and likely social impacts, and perhaps smaller changes to appropriate doctrines
and laws in response to AI's positive and negative affordances." 10

Three important societies issued studies on the need of regulation of AI: UK, EU, and
the US. See CORINNE CATH, 201711. In 2016 the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) released the US report on AI, entitled ‘Preparing for the
Future of Artificial Intelligence'12. The main concern viewed in the document is the

10
Calo 4
11
sempaginaespecifica
12
Xxx endereço de onde está localizado o estudo
necessity to allow the market to be free, so to let, in its own terms, "a thousand flowers
bloom" and a rising, vibrant new market and products arise.

Also in 2016, the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) published
the draft report on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. This report was adopted with some
modifications by the European Parliament on February 201713. The European report is
at the opposite side comparing to the US because it concerns mostly with the need of
Regulation and the creation of a strong regulatory scheme.

UK's report is somewhat in the middle of paths, but the fact is that no one has gone far
with significant and effective regulation so far, not even EU. It seems that there is a fear
that taking that step will represent to lose the commercial war behind it. The same pace
of regulation vacuum that once favored the Internet seems to be happening with AI
presently.

The problem is that, despite our ever-existing thirst for freedom, in some cases
Regulation is needed. Most deaths caused by Artificial Intelligence is due to assembly
line robots. Imagine, for instance, weapons and artificial intelligence wars. Small
robots, with the size of a coin, can be inserted with information of whom to kill and fly
around like insects and until they find and execute their targets14, cutting their bodies
and inserting venom or with other killing methods. Sci-fi? No, unfortunately. This kind
of product is already in production and its technology in possession of some countries.
These gadgets, in theory, once informed of their targets, will fly to execute the order and
humans will be detached from the act of killing. Bearing in mind that these weapons
lack the empathy and intuition that might be important in life and death decisions, and
what type of errors that can occur, the idea seems frightening. Because of that, UN
Human rights commissioner issued warns in 2013 on LARs (Lethal Autonomous

13http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2017-
0051&format=XML&language=EN
14
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/technology-news/the-ultimate-assassin-penny-sized-robots-could-fly-
around-no-kill-rules/
Robots). Isn't this an area that needs regulation? More yet, we would actively defend
that it needs a worldwide treaty.

Artificial Intelligence systems can operate in the financial market. They can perceive
slight variations of a stock, and decide, using their intellectual abilities, when to buy and
sell stocks in a fraction of a second. These systems, if used for huge transactions, have
the power to make the whole financial system collapse. There is, already, a race by
Financial Institutions for the best AI systems but the Financial Stability Board, an
international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial
system, already issued a 45-page report on the cautions that would be necessary to
prevent another world economic crisis, this time driven by AI stock operations15.

But then you have very beneficial benefits from AI systems. I think the majority of
examples would fall on this category.

The Supreme Court of Brazil is using an AI system to expedite the process of admission
of its thousands of appeals every year. The expedition of the Judiciary is a must in a
completely congested system16.

One research, publicized at the World Economic Forum website, is dedicated to creating
microbots that would be inserted on a human body to deliver drugs and kill cancer cells
when it decomposes inside the body, helping doctors with a non-aggressive invasive
type of treatment17.

Although such studies may pose certain risks, the more you put locks on them, maybe
you will be stalling evolution to the humankind.

15
http://www.fsb.org/2017/11/artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-in-financial-service/
16
xxx
17
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/tiny-robot-algae-kill-cancer-cells/
Fill internet companies that use artificial intelligence and big data with regulations and Commented [A2]: Não seria “few”?

things that an average consumer may actually like, such to be shown specific movies or
books suggestions, may not be available anymore, all due to a regulation
“schizophrenia”. Your soulmate can be discovered by Artificial Intelligence applied on
social media, who knows, and that hope of love and everlasting happiness can die at the
pen of a regulator. Who would not want the ability of AIs to diagnose diseases with
higher accuracy or identifying the relation between genes and diseases? And, this one is
easier: who would not want traffic lights that don’t turn red unnecessarily?

Certain risks will play a role in an evolving society, and that is the price of evolution.
Whatever is your position in a broader sense as to “Regulate it or not”, we think that it
will be a case by case circumstance that will define.

Some ideas of possible Regulation have been brainstormed by the public debate
surveyed. They are such:

• Licensing Artificial Intelligence Systems: systems that pose a significant risk to

society would need to be licensed by Regulatory Bodies before operating A noteworthy
debate on the Regulatory bodies is whether AI regulation should be the focus of one
General AI Regulatory entity or fragmented into other Regulatory bodies already
functioning for certain industries. Our view is that fragmented regulation is in many
cases more adequate because it might be very difficult for one regulatory body to tackle
all issues to be faced, although CALO, for instance, in a special class given to our post-
graduation course at UFMG, defended that it would be difficult for every industry
regulator to have a structure just for AI normative, whereas having a unique body with
celebrated professionals would be more feasible to exist and tackle issues that would
appear.

• Insurance: Companies owning such AI systems would have to hire insurance to

cover damages costs. The approach is criticized because it raises costs, but in my view,
it might be a reasonable midway solution in situations that AI could cause financial
damages but it would not be wise to interrupt the progress that the use would entail.
• Ruling on specs: the standard method of regulation, which is to create a set of rules
that would compel industries to follow them.

• Leave it to a "post regulation": it is so difficult to preview risks involved with AI

that regulation would find its locale only with Judges and Jurisprudence, which would
be last resort to regulate. As it does happen unavoidably, real case and decisions will
eventually set the framework for what indeed needs to be regulated.

• Broad Public policy: sometimes the best regulation is understood to be broader

public attitudes. Instead of specific rules that apply to very precise circumstances, a
general approach of fundamental public policy may solve, directly or indirectly, issues
that were poised to be regulated. We will present next a specific AI conundrum that may
be better tackled by ample public policies rather than sensustricto regulation.

LET’S STUDY ONE ARE – YOUR JOB Commented [A3]: Você quer dizer one “area”?

Since we understand that a general approach to AI regulation is not adequate, our focus
now concentrates on a specific problem that instigates concern to a lot of people – the
impact that Artificial Intelligence has on employment. Is a robot or a system going to
take your job? How would that affect the equality (or inequality) of our economies and
is that, the loss or depletion of jobs, something that should be regulated?

The concern with unemployment is widely noted by many scholars. KAPLAN

introduces the topic this way18:

"Obviously, technological improvements have raised productivity and increased

economic output throughout human history, most notably during the industrial
revolution. In plain language, this means that fewer people are needed to perform the
same amount of work."

18
xxx
The concern with job depletion because of the tech revolution is always raised in
comparison or mentioning the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions. The agricultural
revolution took place mainly initially on Great Britain, in the second half of the 18th
century, although occurrences of other agricultural revolutions were seen throughout
history. Through the implementation of various techniques, such as better fertilization
and irrigation techniques, a large number of workers and farmers saw themselves
without a job, having to migrate to cities in search of a position.

There is a somewhat common understanding that AI revolution will not be similar to the
Agricultural Revolution. The difference would reside at the pace of the "revolutions".
People who migrated from rural areas to urban cities did so along a hundred years or
more. The pace of the revolution was not very fast. That allowed that people and
generations have time and means to adapt better to job displacement in farms.

The Agricultural Revolution fueled the Industrial Revolution, because indeed, at first
stage, the new industrial tools and techniques that allowed a higher rate of
industrialization required more people in the cities. At a second juncture of the
Industrial Revolution, an even higher degree of mechanization propelled more people to
be either in a jobless situation or working to earn miserable wages. The industrial
revolution of the 1850s was not as slow as the previous Agricultural Revolution. The
swiftness of the new machines in the industry taking jobs was more hectic. There was
the creation of ghettos and slums, all providing very bad conditions to their residents.
Workers had to cope with low wages and many work hours and only very late on the
game is that governments understood that public regulation, in form of policies were
needed to ease the lives of those displaced from work

Many thinkers would say that AI revolution will be faster than the Agricultural and
Industrial Revolution, due to Moore's law and the exponential growth of computer
capabilities, big data and the number of tasks that would be tackled by Artificial
Intelligence.
To complicate somber perspectives, globalization itself has already taken a toll on
workers and wages, and the world is already seeing a decline in average income
perceived. This process has induced multinational companies to locate their production
plants in economies that allow low wages to human labor and that has, by itself, induced
a generalized accommodation of wages, leveling them to the lowest possible baseline.

In the United States, the top 1 percent of the social pyramid increased earnings by an
incredible 278 percent from 1979 until 2007, according to BRYNJOLFSSON and
MCAFEE ERYK BRYNJOLFSSON19. The top 5% got 80% of the wealth increase.
Similar trends appear in most advanced countries20. According to SYLVIA
ALLEGRETTO and ED WOLFF, from 1983 to 2009, 80% of the bottom of the US
social social pyramid actually had a decrease in their earnings21. Commented [A4]: Social repetido

At the same, type, because of technology and globalization, productivity has actually
increased. According to an OECD paper, "productivity is commonly defined as a ratio
between the output volume and the volume of inputs. In other words, it measures how
efficiently production inputs, such as labor and capital, are being used in an economy to
produce a given level of output." 22

From the early 90s and until the financial crisis of 2008, productivity growth averaged
2.4% yearly on developed countries, according to a McKinsey study23.

19
CHAPTER 9

20
Paul Romer, "Economic Growth," Library of Economics and Liberty, 2008,
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicGrowth.html.
21
Sylvia Allegretto, "The State of Working America's Wealth, 2011," Briefing Paper No.
292, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
22
(http://www.oecd.org/sdd/productivity-stats/40526851.pdf)
23
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/meeting-societys-expectations/solving-the-
productivity-puzzle
All of that means that although productivity has grown, average income has decreased
and inequality has increased.

That fuels the fear that the increase in technology usage and its direct consequence of a
productivity evolution will not revert to the benefit of most people, being possible that
will lead to indeed job depletion and average wage level depression.

MAX TEGMARK, in his visionary book "Life 3.0: Being Human in the age of
Artificial Intelligence" attained the following conclusion:

"as long as automation continues, we should expect those who own the machines to take
a growing fraction of the pie. (…) This allows most of the revenue to go to investors
rather than workers, and helps explain why, even though the combined revenues of
Detroit's "Big 3" (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) in 1990 were almost identical to those of
Silicon Valley's "Big 3" (Google, Apple, Facebook) in 2014, the latter had nine times
fewer employees and were worth thirty times more on the stock market." 24

Interesting for the thoughts brought here is the conclusion of a study written by
economists NIR JAIMOVICH and HENRY SIU that, despite the fact that after every
recession, in 19th and 20th centuries, there was a great and quick surge of employment,
but that did not happen in any recession studied after the 1990s. That would indicate
that there is a trend that, after a recession, companies are avoiding new hires, what can
lead to an understanding that they chose paths to replace employment with other
resources25. Many research papers point towards that inclination26.

24
Max Tegmark, chapter 4 Jobs and wages
25
N. Jaimovich and H. E. Siu, "The Trend is the Cycle: Job Polarization and Jobless Recoveries (No.
w18334)," National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
26
See David H. Autor, Lawrence F. Katz, and Alan B. Krueger, "Computing Inequality: Have Computers
Changed the Labor Market?," Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 1997),
http://www.nber.org/papers/w5956; F. Levy and R. J. Murnane, The New Division of Labor: How Computers
Are Creating the Next Job Market (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012); D. Autor, "The
Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market," The Brookings Institution,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/04/jobs-autor (accessed August 10, 2013); and Daron
Acemoglu and David Autor, "Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings,"
Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2010), http://www.nber.org/papers/w16082.
Almost the majority of studies also find that the big loss will happen for those without
the right skills for the "new" economy, meaning fewer jobs for the less educated. People
with certain engineering, design, creative skills (therefore people with more "human
capital", borrowing the term seen in BRYNJOLFSOON) tend to have more jobs at their
disposal. DAREN ACEMOGLU and DAVID AUTOR have shown in an MIT27 paper
that, since the early 1980s in the US, wages decreased for workers without college
degrees, while the graduated ones had seen consistent growth on their paychecks.
Interesting enough that, according to BRYNJOLFSOON and MCAFEE, there was a
large input of graduate workers in the US economy during these years, what leads to
their conclusion:

"The economics of the story becomes even more striking when one considers that the
number of college graduates grew very rapidly during this period. The number of people
enrolled in college more than doubled between 1960 and 1980, from 758,000 to
1,589,000. In other words, there was a large increase in the supply of educated labor.
Normally, greater supply leads to lower prices. In this case, the flood of graduates from
college and graduate school should have pushed down their relative wages, but it didn't.
The combination of higher pay despite growing supply can only mean that the relative
demand for skilled labor increased even faster than supply. And at the same time, the
demand for tasks that could be completed by high school dropouts fell so rapidly that
there was a glut of this type of worker, even though their ranks were thinning. The lack
of demand for unskilled workers meant ever-lower wages for those who continued to
compete for low-skill jobs28."

The trend that low-skilled workers would suffer the most with a Technology revolution
seems strong enough, due to all the studies cited. Studies also point out that along with
the fact that low-skilled workers will suffer more, also the tendency is that routine tasks
also tend to be those that will have more probability of disappearing. The same study
mentioned above, by JAIMOVICH and SIU, noted a decrease in demand for routine
cognitive tasks, with accelerated rate (11% fall between 2001 and 2011).

27
Daron Acemoglu and David Autor, "Skills, Tasks, and Technologies: Implications for Employment and
Earnings," Handbook of Labor Economics 4 (2011): 1043–1171.
28
ERYK BRYNJOLFSSON CHAPTER 9
McKinsey Consultancy deployed a comprehensive study in 2017 on the effect of AI on
jobs. The study lists the types of jobs that will grow or decline in coming years29. The
study finds that jobs that have the highest potential to be reduced are those that are
predictable, physical jobs.

But even some well-educated employees, but with a routine task may suffer.

Not everything is pessimism, though. Many studies are optimistic: AI will destroy some
jobs, but will also create new jobs, and the balance will be positive.

This article, though, presents, intentionally, a pessimistic view. If there are studies that
concern with job loss, what societies could do to reduce damages is a legitimate
concern, even if the end result of AI in the world is not job depletion. So to tackle this
issue, or to be prepared for that, a scenario with job depletion faster than the Industrial
Revolution, what could be done?

Social AI Science currently presents a number of solutions, some more generic than
others. Most of them are more formatted in the shape of broader public policies with
economic or social measures, rather than using the strict and specific format of
regulation as we know. We saw some typical regulatory measures such as the taxation
of AI in a circumstance of extrafiscality or regulatory taxation.

The most common solution pointed is to improve the welfare system as public policy,
with proposals that preview higher use of UBI (universal basic income). By this
proposition, because society and economies will be able to increase productivity and be
less dependent on human labor, revenues that will be created because of this should be
reverted to people that are laid off, through an improvement of the social safety net.

29
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-organizations-and-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-
the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages
 30
That answer is seen in numerous studies: CHARLES MURRAY (2006) , ANDY
31
STERN and LEE KRAVITZ (2016) , RHODES, KRISILOFF, and ALTMAN (2016)
32
. BRYNJOLFSOON and MCAFEE also put their faith on better welfare. MAX
TEGMARK emphasizes the solution of a basic income program and adds to that the
fact that governments will be able to provide more free services to people33.

The problem with the social welfare idea is that it is a utopic idea. How would
companies and rich billionaires be demanded to fund these welfare systems if they
weren't so far, while poverty and inequality is a raising wave? Also, the idea of a world
of people not having to work, devoted to self-drifting or idleness does not seem very
fruitful to future. It is a positive idea that people should not be slaves to their jobs, but it
is a negative trend that they should not thrive and be needed for society's joint work for
progress. Our criticism of the welfare solution is also shared by JASON FURMAN34

To tax robots and companies that exchange human labor by automated systems is
another idea ventilated. Benoit Hamon, defeated Socialist candidate in presidential
French elections, raised the proposal in his campaign35, and the same idea was proposed
by Bill Gates36. This conception seems to attract broad opposition, though, because it
would be the most direct way to hinder growth and innovation. But the next solution
pointed out here seems to raise more consensus, if not a unanimous understanding. It is
regulation in form of a broader public policy.

30
Murray, Charles. 2006. In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. Washington: AEI Press.
31
Stern, Andy and Lee Kravitz. 2016. Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can
Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream. New York: PublicAffairs.
32
Rhodes, Elizabeth, Matt Krisiloff, and Sam Altman. "Moving Forward on Basic Income." Y
Combinator blog.
33
tegmark
34
Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence
Jason FurmanChairman, Council of Economic Advisers
Remarks at AI Now: The Social and Economic Implications of Artificial IntelligenceTechnologies in the
Near Term. New York UniversityNew York, NYJuly 7, 2016

35
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-23/why-benoit-hamon-s-idea-of-a-robot-tax-is-flawed
36
https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/
Education seems to be the solution. Instead of designing a world that people would not
need to work, people should be taught skills and have the education to thrive and help
world progress even more in the future beyond.

Anyway, it seems to have been rightfully said that, despite whatever is the best solution
is, the “new work” issue will force a new "social contract".

ALL SOCIETIES

Well, if we agree that education is the answer, our last point is then: how to provide
education to thrive in the AI society in places when not even the basic education needs
are provided to people?

The optimistic trend that new jobs will be created tends to be a reality. We do think that
society will not stop still at a stage of self-rambling or idleness, people will want to
advance in sectors and problems and create new products and markets that do not exist.
That has been the trend since the first ancient Agricultural revolution. Society is always
evolving and new solutions and demands will replace old solutions and demands.

If indeed new jobs will be created, and that tends to be our position, these new jobs will
need skills that are not replaced easily by robots or systems. When doctors find it much
easier to diagnose otherwise difficult to be diagnosed diseases, they will put their efforts
in other tasks that may help the human condition.

So the question is whether humans will be educated enough to handle these new tasks,
or whether we will suffer a shortage of workers that will threaten to still progress. How
to impede that and guarantee progress at the best speeds for human society? And how to
do that in communities where not even the basic education needs are at hand?

This is a case for another deeper study.