AI
AI will be the greatest thing since the Industrial Revolution - but recent AI models such as Mythos are already showing dangerous capabilities like superhuman hacking. We must balance economic growth and innovation with safety and alignment. I favour an international treaty to slow or pause new AI model development for several years, while we work through the alignment and job impacts. The world also needs to spend 10 times as much as it currently does on AI safety scientific research - because current techniques are not much better than sticking plasters. This should be a combination of private-sector and public-sector spending.
I strongly back the government’s plan to facilitate the rapid creation of a world-class British Sovereign AI, so that we are not dependent on American AI models.
AI could render many jobs obsolete, in the long run. I propose a two-pronged approach to this:
If the jobs are of a type where the human element is essential - e.g. doctors, judges, politicians - legal bans on AIs taking ultimate decisions in those jobs, and on replacing people’s jobs. We need a national debate on exactly which jobs should be in this category. AI should assist those jobs where possible, not replace them.
With the military, this is a special case that needs a specific policy. In my view the ideal is drones piloted by human operators, with the operators making the final decision on when to fire. Though soldiers on the ground will still be needed in some cases.
In all other cases: the government should not seek to preserve those jobs in aspic, which would slow down the rise in living standards that more forward-looking countries would enjoy. Instead it should use the many macroeconomic policy levers available to it to ensure that on an annual basis, as many jobs are created in the economy as a whole, as are lost to AI. This is not as hard as it sounds if we simply dispense with the outdated idea that the government budget is like a household budget - it isn’t.
However, it must also be recognised that automation - including AI - offers us the opportunity to reduce the demand ("pull") side driving net migration - and given that is desired by the vast majority of the British electorate, that should be pursued.
Startups and red tape
It’s fantastic that Britain has the most startup unicorns in Europe, but there is a problem. We need to trim back excessive regulation, like the Financial Conduct Authority’s “comply or explain” mandate for women on boards. This excessive regulation is driving successful British firms to relocate their headquarters to America before listing on the stock market. If businesses value diversity, they will have diverse boards eventually - it’s not the government’s job to impose diversity in a Stalinesque and micromanaging way.
I think that for every, let's say, five new regulations that are proposed, at least one outdated, obsolete or ineffective regulation or policy should be identified to be removed as well. The onus should be on the politicians proposing the new regulations to identify what old regulation should be removed - and then it should actually be removed. The National Audit Office or a new dedicated body could be engaged to identify regulations that could be dispensed with.
The digital divide
OAPs sometimes feel left behind by technology, and this may prevent them from taking advantage of opportunities like switching to more eco-friendly energy providers. But age is not always the dividing line when it comes to the digital divide. The government should consider how to identify where digital divides exist, and how best to address them - which could involve local IT pros, or it could involve specially designed AI.
This is a potential opportunity for a job guarantee scheme as well. If people are unemployed for a long period of time, one type of guaranteed job that could be created for them is helping older people with their digital needs for accessing public services, energy switching, and so on. Such special "job guarantee" jobs would give people the confidence and the experience on their CVs to help them back into ordinary employment eventually.
Cryptocurrencies
Cryptocurrencies are here to stay, whether politicians like them or not. Having said that, though, a lot of them, particularly the smaller ones, are purely scams or hype machines in nature, and provide no social value whatsoever. I think the current regulatory approach in the UK to cryptocurrencies, which allows buying and selling them on regulated exchanges with KYC requirements, or indirectly via wrappers on the stock market - but bans consumers from doing risky crypto derivatives trading - is about right.
You have to wonder, given the large amounts of money Nigel Farage has received both directly and indirectly from crypto industry people, whether he might face conscious or unconscious bias when voting on laws on crypto or coming up with policies on crypto.