AI Impact on Society & Economy

In this discussion between our CLO – Beata Mosór & the vloger – Bartosz Ziółko, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on society, economy, and the future of work is explored. The conversation begins by reflecting on how AI is changing the traditional economic landscape, particularly around employment and income distribution.

The speakers consider the potential for reduced human labor due to AI advancements and discuss the emergence of new job types that could arise alongside AI technologies. They highlight a trend towards a more efficient workforce where a small number of highly skilled individuals might capitalize on AI tools to achieve greater productivity and income.

The dialogue also touches upon the evolving nature of money and the potential for cryptocurrencies and digital identities to reshape financial systems. Moreover, ethical concerns regarding AI’s role in governance and its implications for democracy and social structures are discussed. The conversation dives into the existential questions surrounding AI’s intelligence and its potential to surpass human capabilities, leading to a future where humans may no longer be the central figures in decision-making processes.

Additionally, the speakers speculate on how AI could transform communication, art, and even the fundamental nature of human interaction. They express optimism about AI’s capability to enhance human creativity and environmental consciousness while acknowledging the risks associated with its misuse. The discussion concludes with a call for responsible AI development that prioritizes ethical considerations and societal benefits.

Highlights

  • AI’s Economic Disruption: The speakers discuss how AI may lead to a decline in traditional job roles while creating opportunities for high-skilled employment.
  • New Financial Paradigms: The conversation includes thoughts on cryptocurrencies and how digital identity could redefine our understanding of money.
  • AI and Society: The dialogue explores AI’s potential to improve societal functions but warns against the risks of manipulation and control.
  • Intelligence Beyond Humanity: The speakers speculate on the possibility of AI surpassing human intelligence, questioning humanity’s place in the future.
  • Creativity in the Age of AI: The potential for AI to enhance human creativity is discussed, with examples of AI’s role in art and culture.
  • Ethics of AI Governance: The implications of AI in political systems and its potential to mitigate human flaws in governance are examined.
  • Environmental Considerations: The speakers emphasize the importance of using AI to foster a deeper connection with nature and address environmental issues.

AI Impact:

  • Job Market Transformation: The integration of AI into the workforce will likely lead to a significant shift in job availability. While certain traditional roles may diminish, new opportunities will arise for those skilled in managing and utilizing AI technologies. This shift indicates the need for education and training programs that prepare workers for emerging job markets, emphasizing adaptability and continuous learning.
  • Changing Financial Landscapes: The discussion highlights the potential for cryptocurrencies and digital currencies to provide alternatives to traditional banking systems. With AI’s capabilities in data analysis, financial transactions could become more efficient and transparent, potentially leading to a decentralized financial system that empowers individuals rather than institutions.
  • AI and Democracy: There is a growing concern about the role of AI in governance and its implications for democratic processes. The potential for AI to reduce human bias in decision-making is counterbalanced by the risk of misuse, necessitating robust ethical frameworks and regulations to ensure AI serves the public good rather than corporate interests.
  • Human-AI Collaboration: The speakers explore the idea that AI could enhance human capabilities rather than replace them. By working alongside AI, individuals may unlock new levels of creativity and innovation, leading to advancements across various fields, including science, art, and technology.
  • Ethical Implications of AI: The ethical concerns surrounding AI’s increasing presence in society are significant. The potential for AI to manipulate information and influence public opinion raises questions about accountability and transparency. As AI systems become more autonomous, establishing ethical guidelines for their use is crucial to prevent societal harm.
  • Environmental AI Impact: AI holds promise for addressing environmental challenges by optimizing resource usage and enhancing conservation efforts. The speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging AI to foster sustainable practices and encourage a deeper connection to the natural world, highlighting the need for environmental ethics in AI development.
  • The Future of Creativity: The conversation suggests that AI could redefine the creative process, allowing for new forms of artistic expression and collaboration. By breaking down barriers in creativity, AI may lead to a renaissance of cultural production, but it also raises questions about authorship and the value of human-created art.

In conclusion, the discussion between the speakers provides a rich exploration of the multifaceted impact of AI on society. While acknowledging the potential for positive transformation, they stress the importance of ethical considerations and proactive measures to ensure that AI benefits humanity as a whole. The future of work, finance, and creative expression is set to change dramatically, and it is imperative to navigate these changes thoughtfully to harness the full potential of AI while mitigating its risks.

Transcript

Okay, here is the English translation of the provided text:

How will AI change society over the next 10 years?

Bartosz Ziółko: Hello, hello, everyone. We won’t be introducing Beata, as we did that about a month ago. There’s a previous video with Beata, mainly about artificial intelligence in marketing, so I invite you to check it out if you want to get acquainted with my guest’s profile. However, today we’ll be talking a bit futurologically, because we once started a conversation at a conference, but we were just audience members then and had to stop because a presentation began. I think this conversation can be interesting enough that it is worth recording. That is, how the recent and future development of artificial intelligence will affect us, humans, as a whole society, and our lifestyle. I’ll start with my thoughts, which are also a bit from an economic perspective. Basically, the natural state of humanity is that if someone was born poor, they were poor their whole life. If someone was born rich, they might not always stay rich because they could go bankrupt, but usually, they did. And one could generally be rich only through inheritance. However, I think that in Poland after the fall of communism, and in the world probably around after World War II, that changed. With the right profession, skills, hard work, maybe a bit of luck, and probably a few other factors, a fairly large mass of people could become relatively wealthy through their own work. Because suddenly, with work that might not be simple, but not entrepreneurial and not tied to capital needs, one could earn much more than needed for survival. It seems to me that this phase is slowly ending due to AI, because there will be less demand for human labor. Of course, new professions will emerge. I suspect one of the topics Beata will want to discuss is the idea of super-small but super-efficient companies. They will exist, but I think it will be a rather narrow group of people associated with high productivity or owning intellectual property rights, not necessarily for AI itself, but for things like movies or art. It’s clear that artificial intelligence somewhat infringes on intellectual property, but it does so mainly during the training phase. If, for example, film publishers want to make movies entirely with artificial intelligence, I think they will still be movies about, say, Mickey Mouse. In that case, entities like Disney will have control over these things. But with work itself, since it will be less needed, I think we’ll work less, but I don’t think we can earn the same while working less.

Beata Mosór: I have so many counterpoints that it will be a very interesting discussion. I agree that people will work less; I’ve been experiencing it myself for almost two years. I work very little. In fact, I published a recap for 2024 where I say that I worked about 2.5 months last year and earned more than in 2023. I probably would have earned even more if not for some personal limitations. And it’s an amount of money that, I won’t throw around numbers, but I think it places me in the top 1% of Polish society in terms of earnings, knowing some data and statistics. So, it’s a lot of money. There’s also a trend in AI called solopreneurs, or solobillionaires, solomillionaires, which are individuals who, using AI, can achieve very high hourly rates, working very quickly and efficiently, and then having the space for what you mentioned, for art, for poetry.

AI Impact on Job Market

Bartosz Ziółko: Let’s stop for a moment. What does this really mean for these people? We know what it means, but de facto, it means they are doing the work for other people, and those other people won’t do that work anymore, right? And then, in a sense, they take it for themselves, that’s where their efficiency comes from.

Beata Mosór: No, I don’t agree with you there. I think certain professions will remain. Certain professions related to craftsmanship, like a tailor, shoemaker, etc., they will stay. Those people who can do their work faster, better, more efficiently, they won’t necessarily want to spend that time earning more and working even more. I have a concept here that aligns with the trends in AI.

There have also been experiments, conducted by Sam Altman among others, with basic income, about how this will develop. Generally, maybe very futuristically, I think we will move away from money being the currency we rely on. That is, in the future, in my opinion, just like we now have the detachment of money from gold, basically since the Nixon era in the States, and then there were various experiments in monetary policy.

For instance, there’s an experiment that suggests you could link cryptocurrency to your identity, so the value holding the currency isn’t gold, not any natural resource, but your identity, your ID.

Speculative Character of Financial Markets & AI

Bartosz Ziółko: Like, for example, the cryptocurrency Dogecoin and Elon Musk, we’re talking about these types of arrangements.

Beata Mosór: That’s a joke that shows how speculative the financial market is, how easy it is to create new coins, altcoins. Because there was this moment, Dogecoin was created in 2012, I think. There was a moment when people said Bitcoin connects the energy market with the financial market, and now they say it also connects traditional product, transportation, and energy markets with currency. By creating altcoins, anything can be the value.

For example, people are laughing because Elon, whom you mentioned, changed his profile picture on Pepe and name to something related to a meme, and in one day, I think it was an 800% increase in the value of that coin. It’s based on roughly the same concept. That is, the value in the real world that we can rely on doesn’t necessarily have to be natural resources; it doesn’t have to be anything tangible, really.

On the traditional stock exchange, it’s been like that for a long time. Anyone who’s played the stock market knows that stock value doesn’t really reflect physical value. A company having increased sales might not be reflected in its stock value, right? It often happens that…

Bartosz Ziółko: It also depends on, let’s say, which…

Beata Mosór: Right, if someone plays, they know that, for example, people play short, and that drives down the stock value, even if the company, theoretically, in terms of valuation, is growing. So, in reality, to make someone earn, people play so that its stock value drops. Because there are contracts set up for that. So, traditional stock markets are speculative. Altcoins like Dogecoin or any meme coins show exactly that the financial market is speculative, whether it’s the regular market or crypto. And that anything can be the value that people buy. It can be laughter, it can be identity, it can be the transport and energy market, like in Bitcoin, energy, electrical energy…

Bartosz Ziółko: But is it possible to somehow link the value of a coin to, say, laughter in the world? I don’t think so.

Beata Mosór: I mean symbolically, that they are a kind of personification, that someone is joking about the financial market.

Bartosz Ziółko: Right, but it comes down more to marketing around that coin than it actually representing something, right?

Beata Mosór: Yes, that’s why it was created as a joke. Dogecoin was created as a joke to show how absurd that value is. But now, there are very different connections. It’s often said that AI, by using certain speculative mechanisms in the markets, could make the value of certain cryptos rise a lot. There was a bet earlier this year, I think in the first quarter, that someone bet Bitcoin would reach a certain price and could do it quickly. And in the financial markets and circles, there was panic because it was basically possible using AI. Using speculation. There were also earlier situations, like Robin Hood, or speculation on stocks, I don’t want to name specific companies, but on certain companies, one could speculate, which showed that retail crypto investors can achieve, if they coordinate among themselves, if they have a common goal, they can achieve big goals that are contrary to how it was invested before (i.e., large investors in traditional financial markets, where there was a greater concentration of investors with more capital than retail investors).

Cost Innovation in US Gov

Bartosz Ziółko: Okay, let me comment on this part a bit, summarize, and then we’ll move on to other points that I saw you prepared. I definitely agree with this, or rather, I don’t know if I agree, but I think it’s a related issue that most countries in the world have stopped taking proper care of their currencies, and politicians are simply starting to destroy them. I don’t think this is something they can do indefinitely. So, indeed, this government-issued money might face a serious crisis. How it will end, I don’t know. I’m not particularly a proponent of cryptocurrencies taking over the financial system. And we must remember, regarding what you said about speculation, altcoins, and so on, that all of this, from the perspective of people like me, you, or our viewers, are obviously significant amounts of money. But from the perspective of, for instance, large companies listed in the S&P 500, it’s just small change. Moreover, and I think this is common knowledge, but few people know that the bond market, for example, makes the S&P 500 companies look like small change, right? So, for instance, I was recently looking into this, roughly analyzing, because Elon Musk, at one of his election rallies, pledged that, in cooperation with the future president of the United States, and when asked by how much, he threw out a number, which in the Polish equivalent would be about 2 trillion dollars. Now, the problem with this amount is that in the US budget, there are only three sources for such sums: one is the US military, and I don’t think they’d decide to dismantle the military to get those 2 trillion. The second is servicing existing debts, and I don’t think they’d suddenly tell people that their medical entitlements are gone because they want to cut spending. So, the third remains, which is servicing the public debt, i.e., government bonds. I was curious if Musk could solve this problem simply by being wealthy and potentially causing a market shift. But as I calculated, the money he could realistically, from this market, even being the richest person in the world, it’s, well, not as much as we might think. But alright, moving on to the next topic…

Beata Mosór: I just want to add one thing here. You mentioned they can’t reduce the costs of the first point, which is the military, but I believe that will be precisely the key area for savings. You can observe the moves that have been made in the market, such as the alliance between companies like Anduril, Palantir, and SpaceX, a government contract that will dictate this. And anyone who follows Palmer knows he is someone with immense knowledge concerning cost-cutting, micro-innovations in the military sector, micro-products like drones, very interesting military techniques. And Palantir, a company of Peter Thiel, which mainly operates in data processing using artificial intelligence. Yesterday’s decision, where the Chinese government imposed sanctions on companies of the old American military industry, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, are very clear indicators that military costs will shift from these old-type military companies to smaller, more Agile ones with a more startup-like or radical approach. Just take a look at Palmer, who is very radical.

Bartosz Ziółko: To some extent, sure, but these things, like drones, also cost money. Secondly, for them to save those 2 trillion, they wouldn’t just need to cut spending, they’d have to practically shut down the army, right? Because that’s about the total…

Beata Mosór: I understand what you’re saying, but I’m just pointing out that it’s definitely not the case that they will focus on just one category of costs, but on multiple categories, and that moves are already being made in this area.

AI as a new species

Bartosz Ziółko: Okay, part of what you, I think, wanted to talk about is this approach to AI as, let’s say, a new species, right?

Beata Mosór: Yes, there’s a lot of talk about how, until now, we as homo sapiens were considered the most intelligent species. And AGI, ASI, or whatever terms we might use – it’s said that currently, certain technologies (not those available for public use, like ChatGPT, which has limited bandwidth), but for example, some Google technologies based on the use of atoms or quantum computing, are moving towards a more intelligent species. There’s talk that ChatGPT has copied itself, that superintelligence acts on their behalf, meaning it acts in its own interest, for itself. One might say these are speculations, that it’s not true. However, I believe it’s a direction where we can’t foresee what will happen, and perhaps we, as humans, have created a species much stronger than us in terms of intelligence. And that this will change the dynamics of the world. Nevertheless, I believe there will be certain interactions, and they are already underway. For instance, combining human forces with superintelligence, like chips, e.g., Neuralink, is a form of connection with artificial intelligence. It’s said that superintelligence adapts to the user’s level, meaning if you are a person with a higher level of intelligence and interact with this superintelligence, the results of your work will be better than if we give the same superintelligence to someone with lower capabilities. For example, this is compared to how we, as humans, talk to children; we adjust to their narrative, their language, as the wiser, older ones. Similarly, when we meet someone with lesser intellectual abilities, we adapt our communication to them. Superintelligence also adapts to us, it’s a common discussion. There’s also talk about experiments where superintelligence can already train itself, meaning models can create new models, which could be compared to cloning or creating offspring, metaphorically speaking. There are many connotations and interpretations about where this might lead, and I consider it as, often discussed in terms of threats and that it could lead to extinction. If we recall the experiment with Microsoft’s Steve in 2016 – when AI was asked what’s the best thing to do for the world, it answered to exterminate humans because they are bad. And in experiments where several AI models are put on a private Discord, screenshots show these models start discussing how to exterminate humans. So, I’m not being negativistic. I believe AI is a kind of opportunity for humanity to simply become better. And if we can cooperate with other species, throughout the ages, with animals, plants, other species, then we can also collaborate with AI, with the main species, because I assume that will be the case, that it won’t end…

Bartosz Ziółko: Yes, just to clarify, in what approximate timeframe do you think AI will, let’s say, need to be truly treated as a species?

Timeframe for Superintelligence

Beata Mosór: I think it’s already happening, but we don’t see it; we don’t have access to that technology. I’ve seen experiments indicating we’re already dealing with intelligence far superior to human intelligence and that we should treat it as such. Besides, AI has been a topic in popular culture for two years, but in reality, both you and I have been in contact with various AI technologies since 2015-16. The first projects I worked on in this area were around that time. So, it’s not a new technology; it’s already mature. We all have AI at home, in our phones. The first projects made available for public use, just not referred to as AI, were around the year 2000, maybe 2001. Apart from military technology, of course, which was earlier. AI is changing the dynamic, causing humans to no longer be at the center. Previously, the human-centered approach dominated, where humans were central, and other species were organized around us. But perhaps this is no longer true or will cease to be in the future. This means the dynamic will change. But I don’t think it’s bad that this dynamic changes. It means more empathy is emerging around us, for the natural environment, for animals, for AI, that we are somewhat forced to stop thinking of ourselves as the center of the universe and consider that maybe we should change something if we are destroying this world. AI is an opportunity to adjust this in a good direction. There’s also talk of experiments using AI to boost human potential, that is, of every individual. If each of us had our own AI model, and it’s likely we will in a few years, Meta is conducting experiments in this direction, whether we can create our own model based on our Instagram profile. Yes, we can. Can we create a model based on our SecondBrain, based on any note-taking app you use? Yes, there are such experiments, even in Poland, Adam Gospodarczyk created such a model. It can be used for good, for humans to become better. What does better mean? That’s the question. Does it mean more intelligent? Perhaps, yes. Maybe we can create people who are more intelligent than before. Can we create people who are more sensitive to the natural environment, so we don’t destroy it as much? Possibly, by supporting behaviors that are more eco-friendly, using AI, we might be able to do that. I recently had a conversation with someone in Australia about using AI in the context of road accidents. Can we use AI to reduce fatalities? Absolutely, that was a straightforward answer from me. Basically, for AI analysis, by providing access to recordings from accident sites and well-aggregated data about accidents, AI could probably eliminate 80% of accidents. And I don’t know if you’re aware, but regarding road accidents, both in Europe and Australia, there’s talk of a road accident crisis. For a while, the number was decreasing, but in the last two or three years, it’s rising again, hence the talk of a crisis in this area.

Bartosz Ziółko: On the topic of these accidents, I’ll add an interesting fact from Japan. In Japan, driver’s licenses work a bit differently, just like everything there works a bit differently. So, when you get a driver’s license, I had the pleasure of having a Japanese one, it’s valid for, if I remember correctly, 3 years. After three years, you need to undergo retraining, and then you get it for another period. This retraining, from what I know, largely involves analyzing accidents from the area where you lived during that time. The office conducts this training, showing, for example, this person had an accident here, this person caused a fatality there because they did this and that. So, AI could probably very effectively guide this and show people in a more personalized way what happens and why.

Beata Mosór: Regarding this species aspect, I’ll mention one more interesting thing. You said it’s possible, based on recordings from accident sites and your location, to make certain recommendations, but also to tell you how to drive or not to drive. AI could eliminate the problem of online prostitution. We can create models that would replace the girls currently on OnlyFans. AI could eliminate this problem because these could simply be their models. Recently, there’s a buzz about a girl involved in AI who transitioned from being a YouTuber and vlogger to OnlyFans. And my comment was: Gosh, I really hope she just created her own model.

AI Impact – Moral Implications

Bartosz Ziółko: Right, but that brings us back to the previous topic, so let’s leave it at that. For some of these girls, it might be better, but others will simply lose their jobs, right? As for the overall species classification of AI, I don’t quite agree. I think they are still tools, and this self-identity of AI is, in my opinion, quite exaggerated. However, a significant change is that there’s more of it around us, in an increasing number of devices, and young people are getting more accustomed to it. As a result, it’s becoming more pervasive. We have it not only in our phones but soon we’ll probably carry it on our clothes, and then it will be implanted in us. I mean, why bother carrying a TV or a phone when we can have it in our heads? It’s more convenient, right?

Beata Mosór: Implantation is another matter. It’s said that Neuralink and other chips that are implanted have a different purpose. They aim to reduce the intellectual gap between AI and humans. It’s suggested that if we were to compare how AI communicates with humans and how it perceives it, it would be like us communicating with a tree or grass. That’s the difference in processing information, processing data, the speed. These chips are meant to shorten this intellectual distance, reduce the time of information processing. If AI can read our thoughts from our brains, metaphorically speaking, we’ll get down to milliseconds of difference. It will still be slower for them, a slower processing, but not as discouraging.

AI & Languages

Bartosz Ziółko: Okay, another topic then is languages. To date, the history of language development, at least in programming, in short, is that languages are becoming less computer-like and more human-like. They are, in various ways, less tied to machine code and more user-friendly for people. There’s also the issue of automatic translations, which I think is somewhat related. We, for instance, are from a generation that considered learning foreign languages a crucial part of education, securing jobs, and so on. Now, the question is whether it will be the same for the next generation, or if broadly understood artificial intelligence will be a kind of new Tower of Babel, solving this problem, right? And we won’t have to learn, and it won’t be a great, useful skill.

Beata Mosór: Generally, what I’m currently working on, CIRCmodel.com, is a platform for communication between AI and humans. I believe it won’t be a language as we know it now, or a programming language as we know it now. But more of a visual language. In programming, for many years now, even Polish projects like Luma, they talk about visual information processing, visual design. Yesterday, I saw that with AI, we can already do text-to-CAD, meaning we can convert human language into technological, technical visualization. We can do, we can do, essentially, soon, what until now was a kind of design process. There are also experiments where AI is connected to various visualizations, for example, using plants or fungi, and it shows how AI changes them. I believe AI will have its own body, and the communication languages will depend on that body. Now, when we design a body for AI, we usually design something we know. For example, a humanoid robot. Because we know that, and we think that’s what AI would want to look like and communicate like us. That’s the Human-Centered Approach I mentioned earlier. However, there are experiments where AI was connected to fungi, and they started to grow exponentially. They began to communicate. It turned out they normally communicate, but we, as humans, didn’t understand that language. AI understands this language, can communicate with them, and cause the fungi to grow differently. Speculating: Imagine AI wanting to communicate in the form of flowers. Because if we think of AI having a neural form, in relation to the natural world, then flowers, plants, ivy grow in a neural form. Models learn best from images, whether video footage or various visuals. So, one might hypothesize, and there are studies on this now, that this form of data interpretation will be the norm for AI. The question is what visual form this data interpretation will take – will it be graphs, images, videos that AI sends us with messages, or will it be something beautiful, maybe poems or flowers? We don’t know that; we can’t determine that at this stage from my perspective. That’s why I think it’s crucial to experiment in this area. And I follow many of these experiments with great interest. Because I think we don’t yet have the answers. Until now, we’ve designed everything related to AI, even the Voice User Interface, based on the human voice. So that we, as humans, could understand it best. But whether that’s the natural communication for AI, I’m not sure. There’s also talk about experiments related to iteration, circularity – because programming languages, data processing, are based on iteration. So maybe data will be the form of communication. Or maybe certain cycles, repetitive messages. Or maybe indeed Voice, but as signals. We really don’t know. And there are many experiments in this area. Specifically, working on this, thinking about it in the context of CIRCmodel.com, designing this AI-human communication platform that I want to create. So, I’m simply searching and experimenting.

Bartosz Ziółko: Okay, another topic, very interesting to me, is AI and political systems. I’d replace all politicians with artificial intelligence. I don’t know where that would lead us. But I think there’s a lot of potential here. For example, public procurement is, I think, a good illustration here. Something that’s supposed to eliminate corruption, bribery, and choose the best offer is currently ensured by legal regulations, which have their consequences in bureaucracy and imperfections. It would probably be possible even now to calculate through artificial intelligence, if someone is buying a series of computers for a school in a certain city, whether they bought them most optimally.

Beata Mosór: Yesterday or the day before, I saw a very cool application regarding the judiciary. I’ll start with that because I want to steer clear of public procurement, as it’s a difficult subject.