Thus ends another year of the digital revolution of the 21st century. Advances in technology over the past two decades have ensured that artificial intelligence (AI) will be a competing force in the future of state activities, especially in policy-making. However, integrating technology into politics is not just about algorithms and machine learning, but about security, strategy and ethics. The question of whether optimization – one of the primary goals of AI – can intersect with the well-being of nations and peoples remains unanswered.
Popular works have long warned us of the risks of a world ruled by technocratic mechanization. The scholar Schoni Song delves into this phenomenon by juxtaposing popular bestsellers Dunes with contemporary case studies of AI-related events on the global stage. Song points out that the regulation of AI today echoes concerns raised by Frank Herbert’s epic novel, in which AI machines and cyborgs were banned after an insurrection. For Song, “the banning of ‘thinking’ robots and a much more draconian moral code that stipulated that humans would no longer build machines ‘in the image of a human mind'” reverberate in current national and supranational discussions. on AI.
The new year brings a number of states one step closer to achieving their policy goals, some of which are pressing, around AI technologies. Argentina wants to implement a national AI plan by 2029; China wants to enact Law 360, which integrates AI into legal proceedings, by 2025; and the EU announced its indefinite plan to be a pioneering force in AI ethics in 2018, admitting it was open to changes based on the future of new technologies. Even the UN wants to incorporate AI regulatory plans into its Sustainable Development Goals, aiming for a finish line of 2030.
According to Song, such proposals have fueled a sort of ongoing international race, but not all states have succeeded in implementing their plans. For example, in 2018 Macron proposed the glamorous Joint European Disruptive Initiative (JEDI), but it has since quietly become moot.
Algorithmic decision-making is a daunting reality: at worst, it implements pre-existing biases; at best, it borrows the strongest traits of a workforce. Optimization in itself can be polarizing, especially in international relations. As Song explains, from the Alfie Evans case in the UK to a new social credit scoring initiative in China, global concerns about AI in politics are growing. Although many concerns can be dismissed as based on a Dunes-like hysterical groupthink, some are legitimate problems.
For example, the application of AI globally continues to evolve, and there is still no central governance with a strong ethical framework to regulate the use and integration of the technology into public policy. . Instead, the emphasis has been on establishing a principle of priority on a case-by-case basis. This method has predictable flaws, however: what works in one country’s Big Tech industry may not easily work in another. This uneven implementation could allow technological hegemonies to take the lead, with significant consequences for the slow adopter.
Song predicts that domestically and globally, “competition for AI supremacy will come down to who has the best and biggest data.” Right now, “autocratic regimes clearly have a competitive advantage in this area of data acquisition and control.” Nations forced to navigate “civil liberty and privacy concerns over the idea of Big Brother collecting and using their own data through various artificial intelligence applications,” including the United States, could find themselves in a position precarious and uncompetitive.
“The future of a free and prosperous world may be at stake,” Song argues, “depending on who articulates the next global AI vision and the values they represent.”
Support JSTOR everyday! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.
Resources
JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers and students. JSTOR Daily readers get free access to the original research behind our JSTOR stories.
From: Schoni Song
Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 72, n° 1, THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (Fall 2018/Winter 2019), pp. 135–142
Journal of International Affairs Editorial Board