AI could threaten some jobs, but it is more likely to become our personal assistant
Sheffield (The Conversation): BT recently announced that it would be reducing its staff by 55,000, with around 11,000 of these related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The remainder of the cuts were due to business efficiencies, such as replacing copper cables with more reliable fibre optic alternatives.
The point regarding AI raises several questions about its effect on the wider economy: what jobs will be most affected by the technology, how will these changes happen and how will these changes be felt?
The development of technology and its associated impact on job security has been a recurring theme since the industrial revolution. Where mechanisation was once the cause of anxiety about job losses, today it is more capable AI algorithms. But for many or most categories of job, retaining humans will remain vital for the foreseeable future.
The technology behind this current revolution is primarily what is known as a large language model (LLM), which is capable of producing relatively human-like responses to questions. It is the basis for OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Bard system and Microsoft's Bing AI.
These are all neural networks: mathematical computing systems crudely modelled on the way nerve cells (neurons) fire in the human brain. These complex neural networks are trained on or familiarised with text, often sourced from the internet.
The training process enables a user to ask a question in conversational language and for the algorithm to break the question down into components. These components are then processed to generate a response that is appropriate to the question asked.
The result is a system that's able to provide sensible sounding answers to any question it gets asked. The implications are more wide-ranging than they might seem.
Humans in the loop
In the same way that GPS navigation for a driver can replace the need for them to know a route, AI provides an opportunity for workers to have all the information they need at their fingertips, without "Googling".
Effectively, it removes humans from the loop, meaning any situation where a person's job involves looking up an item and making links between them could be at risk. The most obvious example here is call centre jobs.
However, it remains possible that members of the public would not accept an AI solving their problems, even if call waiting times became much shorter.
Any manual job has a very remote risk of replacement. While robotics is becoming more capable and dexterous, it operates in highly constrained environments. It relies on sensors giving information about the world and then making decisions on this imperfect data.
AI isn't ready for this workspace just yet, the world is a messy and uncertain place that adaptable humans excel in. Plumbers, electricians and complex jobs in manufacturing for example, automotive or aircraft face little or no competition in the long-term.
However, AI's true impact is likely to be felt in terms of efficiency savings rather than outright job replacement. The technology is likely to find quick traction as an assistant to humans. This is already happening, especially in domains such as software development.
Rather than using Google to find out how to write a particular piece of code, it's much more efficient to ask ChatGPT. The solution that comes back can be tailored strictly to a person's requirements, delivered efficiently and without unnecessary detail.
Safety-critical systems
This type of application will become more commonplace as future AI tools become true intelligent assistants. Whether companies use this as an excuse to look to reduce workforces becomes dependent on their workload.
As the UK is suffering a shortage of Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) graduates, especially in disciplines such as engineering, it's unlikely that there will be a loss of jobs in this area, just a more efficient manner of tackling the current workload.
This relies on staff making the most of the opportunities that the technology affords. Naturally, there will always be scepticism, and the adoption of AI into the development of safety-critical systems, such as medicine, will take a considerable amount of time. This is because trust in the developer is key, and the simplest way that it develops is through having a human at the heart of the process.
This is critical, as these LLMs are trained using the internet, so biases and errors are woven in. These can arise accidentally, for example, through a person to a particular event simply because they share the same name as someone else. More seriously, they may also occur through malicious intent, deliberately allowing training data to be presented that is wrong or even intentionally misleading.
Cybersecurity becomes an increasing concern as systems become more networked, as does the source of data used to build the AI. LLMs rely on open information as a building block that is refined by interaction. This raises the possibility of new methods for attacking systems by creating deliberate falsehoods.
For example, hackers could create malicious sites and put them in places where they are likely to be picked up by an AI chatbot. Because of the requirement to train the systems on lots of data, it's difficult to verify everything is correct.
This means that, as workers, we need to look to harness the capability of AI systems and use them to their full potential. This means always questioning what we receive from them, rather than just trusting their output blindly. This period brings to mind the early days of GPS, when the systems often led users down roads unsuitable for their vehicles.
If we apply a sceptical mindset to how we use this new tool, we'll maximise its capability while simultaneously growing the workforce as we've seen through all the previous industrial revolutions.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
US vetoes Palestinian bid to gain statehood at the United Nations
United Nations, Apr 19: The US has vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council on the latest Palestinian bid to be granted full membership of the United Nations, an outcome lauded by Israel but criticised by Palestine as “unfair, immoral, and unjustified".
The 15-nation Council voted on a draft resolution Thursday that would have recommended to the 193-member UN General Assembly “that the State of Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations.”
The resolution got 12 votes in its favour, with Switzerland and the UK abstaining and the US casting its veto.
To be adopted, the draft resolution required at least nine Council members voting in its favour, with no vetoes by any of its five permanent members - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Palestinian attempts for recognition as a full member state began in 2011. Palestine is currently a non-member observer state, a status that was granted in November 2012 by the UN General Assembly.
This status allows Palestine to participate in proceedings of the world body but it cannot vote on resolutions. The only other non-member Observer State at the UN is the Holy See, representing the Vatican.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz praised the US for vetoing what he called a “shameful proposal.”
“The proposal to recognise a Palestinian state, more than 6 months after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and after the sexual crimes and other atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists was a reward for terrorism”, Katz wrote on X, after the US veto.
US Ambassador Robert Wood, Alternative Representative for Special Political Affairs, said in the explanation of the vote at the Security Council meeting on Palestinian membership that Washington continues to strongly support a two-state solution.
“It remains the US view that the most expeditious path toward statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners,” he said.
“This vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood, but instead is an acknowledgement that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties.”
Wood said there are “unresolved questions” as to whether Palestine meets the criteria to be considered a State.
“We have long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to help establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas - a terrorist organisation - is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, an integral part of the state envisioned in this resolution,” he said, adding that “For these reasons, the United States voted “no” on this Security Council resolution.”
Wood noted that since the October 7 attacks last year against Israel by Hamas, US President Joe Biden has been clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed.
"There is no other path that guarantees Israel’s security and future as a democratic Jewish state. There is no other path that guarantees Palestinians can live in peace and with dignity in a state of their own. And there is no other path that leads to regional integration between Israel and all its Arab neighbours, including Saudi Arabia,” he said.
The Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, sharply criticised the US veto, saying that it was “unfair, immoral, and unjustified, and defies the will of the international community, which strongly supports the State of Palestine obtaining full membership in the United Nations.”
Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine, said that “our right to self-determination has never once been subject to bargaining or negotiation.
“Our right to self-determination is a natural right, a historic right, a legal right. A right to live in our homeland Palestine as an independent state that is free and that is sovereign. Our right to self-determination is inalienable...,” he said.
Getting emotional and choking up as he made the remarks, Mansour said that a majority of the Council members “have risen to the level of this historic moment” and have stood “on the side of justice, freedom and hope.”
He asserted that Palestine’s admission as a full member of the UN is an “investment in peace.”
On April 2, 2024, Palestine again sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres requesting that its application for full UN membership be considered again.
For a State to be granted full UN membership, its application must be approved both by the Security Council and the General Assembly, where a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting is required for the State to be admitted as a full member.
Earlier in the day, Guterres, in his remarks to a Council meeting on the Middle East, warned that the region is on a “knife edge”.
“Recent escalations make it even more important to support good-faith efforts to find lasting peace between Israel and a fully independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state,” Guterres said.
“Failure to make progress towards a two-state solution will only increase volatility and risk for hundreds of millions of people across the region, who will continue to live under the constant threat of violence,” he said.
The UN, citing the Ministry of Health in Gaza, said that between October 7 last year and April 17, at least 33,899 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and 76,664 Palestinians injured. Over 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals, including 33 children, have been killed in Israel, the vast majority on October 7.
As of April 17, Israeli authorities estimate that 133 Israelis and foreign nationals remain captive in Gaza, including fatalities whose bodies are withheld.
