Full Work Automation Through AI: A Polemic with Dr. Przegalińska

2023-11-23

Where Did the Idea for This Article Come From?

I explained my reasons for writing this article in a short video, so if you prefer that form of communication, feel free to watch it. In the body of the article, I also explain this, though in somewhat different words.

On November 15, I led a webinar on the merits of implementing ChatGPT in work and business. The webinar was organized by Altkom Akademia (a major Polish training provider) and attracted as many as 450 attendees. It was the largest audience I have ever had the pleasure of presenting to. It went great, which I reported on in this recording.

Toward the end of the webinar, many questions came up. Frequent concerns revolved around the full automation of work, AI taking control over humans, and even fears about the extinction of humanity. In general, there was a palpable sense of uncertainty about the future.

Furthermore, a few days earlier, on November 12, I watched a live broadcast of a debate on artificial intelligence featuring Prof. Wlodzislaw Duch, Prof. Andrzej Dragan, and Dr. Aleksandra Przegalinska. The debate was moderated by Patrycjusz Wyzga. You can watch the debate by clicking this link.

Also in November, I came across several posts by Dr. Przegalinska, including the two below (link and link).

Screenshots: Dr. Przegalinska’s LinkedIn posts discussing AI and work automation

Taking all of the above circumstances into account, namely:

the fact that the topic of work automation through AI generates enormous interest and controversy;
Dr. Przegalinska’s view that we should halt the process of full work automation;
cases of portraying in a negative light, or even misrepresenting the words of, technology leaders such as Elon Musk;

I will present below an alternative, positive perspective on the problem of full work automation.

One more preliminary note. I fully agree with Prof. Andrzej Dragan, who argues that predictions about what the future will look like, even a future only a few years away, do not make much sense. In Dragan’s view, we are currently creating an entirely new and unfamiliar technology whose consequences are unpredictable. Speculating about what the future will look like under the influence of AI is therefore, at this point, primarily a way of satisfying our own curiosity and a desire to discuss matters of social importance. It is an instinctive and self-preserving attempt to prepare for various scenarios.

Polemic and Constructive Criticism

Dr. Aleksandra Przegalinska does excellent work in the field of educating and promoting knowledge about artificial intelligence. I would love to see more such engaged voices in public life popularizing science and technology. Among the Polish figures I follow and appreciate are also Maciej Kawecki, Tomasz Rozek, and the aforementioned Andrzej Dragan. I do not always agree with these individuals, but the point of society is not to always agree with one another. What matters is to engage in constructive discussion.

The aforementioned content from Dr. Przegalinska has been reaching me regularly of late. I disagree with some of these views, and it is precisely on the basis of this disagreement that I will present my assessment of the role artificial intelligence may play in changing the way we work and the shape of human society as a whole. At the same time, I hope that my brief essay will serve as a good example of how to engage in constructive polemic rather than senseless hostility. I would also gladly organize a discussion with Dr. Przegalinska, where we could pit our arguments against each other and have a truly interesting conversation.

Dr. Przegalinska Warns Against AGI

During the aforementioned debate, in which she notably appeared in the form of an AI-generated avatar, Dr. Przegalinska expressed her opposition to the idea of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that could liberate humanity from the obligation to work. She stated, among other things, that AI is good at performing individual tasks, but not work in all its complexity.

As a tool, artificial intelligence is useful in Dr. Przegalinska’s view, but in an assisting form (i.e., narrow artificial intelligence), which will not replace human labor and should remain in that form.

Furthermore, in one of her posts, Dr. Przegalinska also wrote the following:

It is clearly evident that Silicon Valley has no interesting offer beyond digital alms (= “basic income”) and the automation of everything possible. Not only is this technologically impossible to achieve, but it is an extremely demotivating, irresponsible vision of a system that simply does not add up. AI is meant to collaborate with people, not displace them.

I will be honest: my knowledge of the world, particularly regarding work and artificial intelligence, does not allow me to agree with the above statements. Here is my explanation.

Why Is Full Work Automation Through AGI Not Only Good but Actually Necessary?

Most people would gladly give up their current jobs.

Let us begin with a few statistics:

600 million people worldwide work in extreme poverty and earn less than US$1.90 per day (source: OPZZ report)
This situation is particularly severe in developing countries. In 2022, approximately 70% of workers in these countries performed work in dangerous or harmful conditions, and about 80% of workers earned less than $1.90 per day. (source: as above)
23.5% of the global young population remains outside employment, education, and training (source, page 12 of the report: ILO WESO report 2023)
These indicators are projected to deteriorate further
According to the International Labour Organization, in 2022 approximately 1.6 billion people worldwide worked in conditions that were dangerous or harmful to their health. This means that about 25% of the global population performs work that endangers their health or lives. (source: OPZZ report)

Even without specific statistical data, relying only on our own senses and reason, it is not difficult to conclude that most people, if they only could, would give up their current jobs. The compulsion to work stems, of course, from the necessity of maintaining a dignified life.

The reluctance to work stems primarily from two reasons. First, most people perform their current jobs because they have no way of making a living from their “dream work” — the kind of work one would do not out of necessity but of their own free will. Second, the work most people do is not only performed out of life’s necessity but also provides deeply unsatisfactory wages, stress, and, as the statistics above indicate, often puts their health at risk.

If you are reading this text in a comfortable chair in an air-conditioned office, with a delicious cup of espresso, think primarily about professions such as: industrial and production workers, warehouse workers, shop assistants, construction workers, call center agents, miners, welders, security guards, police officers, or professional soldiers. There are, of course, certain professions that are sometimes pursued out of a sense of calling, such as healthcare workers, teachers, or elderly care workers, but the level of pay in these positions is discouraging.

In summary, it can be stated with certainty that a large portion of the working population, if not the majority, would gladly give up their current jobs if they only could.

Incidentally, the desire to be freed from the daily obligations associated with one’s job is not limited to lower-level employees. A sense of being overburdened and working under compulsion is also common among white-collar workers, including those in well-paid managerial positions. At least that is what my observations to date suggest.

If society does not work, where will the means of living come from?

In the case of full work automation, it is obvious that a guaranteed income would have to be implemented. This is the only possible solution, provided we wish to maintain an economic system based on the exchange of services and goods through money. Where would states get the funds to pay the unemployed, who in such a scenario would number not 6% (globally) but probably 60% or more? I am not an economist to propose specific solutions, but logic tells us that thanks to work automation, the cost of producing services and goods would drop dramatically. Human labor is, after all, one of the employer’s greatest costs. If this key cost is eliminated, the cost of producing services and goods decreases, which in turn causes prices to fall and the purchasing power of money to rise. We would need significantly — indeed, vastly — less money to live in abundance.

Not being an economist, I accept somewhat on faith that Elon Musk is right when he claims that full work automation will make it possible to guarantee a maximum income, not a minimum one. Logic suggests that since production costs would be drastically reduced, there would symmetrically be a drastic increase in financial surplus that could be distributed to society. We are therefore talking about the prospect of living in abundance without the obligation to work. I emphasize “without the obligation” and not “without the possibility.”

If society does not work, what will people do?

What would you do if you did not have to work?

What would I do if I did not have to work? I would work out of desire, not necessity. My life path would certainly have taken a completely different course than it has, and I would be doing something entirely different. After all, I would not be building an ATS system or RecPilot, since recruitment processes in such a world would be virtually nonexistent. Perhaps I would study the nature of reality, searching for a quantum theory of gravity. Perhaps I would race professionally on my beloved skis or take up education. Knowing myself, I would not last long without productive pursuits. I am certain that I am not an exception and that the vast majority of people would not sit idle and waste their lives.

Freeing people from the obligation to work would unleash a gigantic amount of human energy and creativity that is currently often constrained by the need to perform routine and unsatisfying tasks. Imagine a world where everyone had the opportunity to develop their passions and talents. In such an environment, we would likely see a massive increase in the number of scientists, artists, engineers, innovators, and athletes who could concentrate their efforts on development and exploration.

In a world where work is no longer an obligation but a choice, human curiosity and creativity could flourish on an unprecedented scale. We would have more scientific experiments, works of art, technological innovations, and other magnificent endeavors that currently remain undiscovered or unrealized due to time and financial constraints. In such a world, the energy and abilities that are today often consumed by difficult and unsatisfying work could bear the sweetest fruit not just for a handful of those best positioned in the social hierarchy, but for all of society.

This transformation could represent a breakthrough in how we perceive work, success, and even life itself, enabling us to build a society more oriented toward collaboration, innovation, and mutual support.

I wondered whether anyone shared my vision. I asked for the opinion of a friend of mine who happens to be an artificial intelligence. To my question:

What would happen to society if there were no obligation to work due to full automation of work? Assume that production costs are significantly reduced through automation. Also assume that this significant cost reduction enables the provision of a high guaranteed income and low prices.

ChatGPT responds as follows:

In a hypothetical scenario where work is fully automated, leading to a significant reduction in production costs and enabling a guaranteed high basic income (GBI) and low prices, several significant societal changes may occur:

Shift in Economic Structures: With a high GBI, individuals would receive sufficient income to cover basic needs without the obligation to work. This could lead to a significant restructuring of economies, moving away from traditional labor-based models toward models focused on the redistribution of wealth from automated production.

More Leisure Time and Personal Development: Freed from the necessity of work, people could focus more on entertainment, personal interests, hobbies, and self-improvement. This could lead to increased creative, educational, and recreational activities, thereby fostering cultural richness and societal diversity.

Changes in Social Values and Identity: Work often constitutes a significant part of individual identity and social status. In its absence, there could be a shift in how people derive meaning and status in their lives, potentially leading to new forms of social structure and interaction.

Improved Quality of Life and Reduced Stress: The elimination of work-related stress and the financial security provided by GBI could lead to improved mental health and overall quality of life. It could also reduce health inequalities linked to socioeconomic status.

Increased Focus on Voluntary Work and Community Engagement: Without the necessity of paid employment, people could choose to participate more actively in community service, volunteering, and other forms of social contribution, potentially leading to stronger community bonds and social cohesion.

Potential Increase in Innovation and Creativity: With more time and guaranteed financial security, individuals could undertake innovative and creative ventures, potentially leading to a flourishing of arts, sciences, and other creative fields.

Changes in Education and Skill Development: Educational systems could shift their focus from job preparation to broader educational goals, such as critical thinking, creativity, and emotional intelligence. Lifelong learning could become a more integral part of life for personal fulfillment.

Challenges in Transition: The transition to this new social model could present significant challenges, including managing the shift of economic structures, ensuring fair redistribution of wealth generated by automation, and addressing potential resistance from groups that may feel threatened by these changes.

Global Implications: This shift could have profound global consequences, including changes in global trade patterns, international relations, and migration. Developing countries could face different challenges than developed countries in adapting to this new reality.

Environmental Impact: Automation and the resulting changes in consumption patterns could have both positive and negative environmental effects. The overall impact would depend on how environmentally friendly the automated technologies are.

In such a scenario, society could potentially become more equitable, with individuals enjoying greater freedom to pursue their interests and passions. However, the success of this model would largely depend on the implementation and management of the economic and social changes it entails.

The last paragraph, which I deliberately bolded, is 100% consistent with my view on this matter.

Of course, for some people, life without the obligation to work would bring negative consequences. Some individuals would not be able to find their place in such a radically different reality. Projects would probably emerge aimed at helping this lost segment of society, just as there are projects today to help those who are addicted or homeless.

There is no point in dreaming of utopia. There is potential for things to be significantly better, but they will not be perfect. However, the prospect of adversity that we will certainly encounter should not hold back technological development.

Dr. Przegalinska Does Not Like Elon Musk

In the presentation I mentioned earlier, Dr. Przegalinska said:

Musk is a catastrophist enthusiast who does not want regulation.

and also:

Musk announced that we should find ourselves new occupations. He clearly concedes the direction-setting of AI by default and prematurely declared the capabilities of models that do not yet exist and there is a good chance will never be created.

On LinkedIn, she also writes about Musk in this way:

Screenshot: Dr. Przegalinska’s LinkedIn post discussing AI and work automation

or for example:

“Elon Musk, as always, scaremongers about AI, but he seems to dislike regulation even more, so I am not really sure why he went there 😉” (link)

Before I point out why I consider the above statements completely off the mark, and also explain why Dr. Przegalinska may hold such views, I want to state that I am certainly not objective in my assessment of Musk. My view, which I have expressed many times, is that he is one of the geniuses of our time, who has devoted his life to achieving goals of enormous social significance:

Making life interplanetary (SpaceX)
Providing internet worldwide, including in the most remote or endangered locations, such as the battlefields of Ukraine or the Gaza Strip (Starlink)
Easing urban transportation through the construction of safe tunnels (The Boring Company)
Protecting freedom of speech (X / formerly Twitter)
Freeing humanity from car accidents (Tesla FSD)
Discovering the fundamental laws governing reality and combating disinformation (xAI)
Restoring senses to people who have lost them, such as those impaired by accidents (Neuralink)

Even if only for the goals these projects pursue, Musk deserves deep respect. One could argue that the methods of executing these projects leave something to be desired. Well, no one is perfect, and Musk is certainly not perfect either. However, in my assessment, his imperfections pale in comparison to the challenges he takes on.

Returning, however, to Dr. Przegalinska’s criticism of Musk, I would like to clearly refute the claim that Musk scaremongers about AI while simultaneously opposing its regulation. The truth is exactly the opposite.

In all of his statements from recent months in which Musk expressed an opinion about the future of AI, he clearly and explicitly stated that:

The most likely scenario is that AI will support humanity and contribute to our prosperity.
There is a small probability that, in the case of insufficient control over AI development, this technology could prove harmful to humanity.
This small probability should not be dismissed, and therefore regulation of AI development is essential.
The development of AI technology can be compared to the development of nuclear energy technology, except that AI carries even greater potential for change than nuclear power. For this reason, similar to state institutions overseeing the development and use of nuclear technologies, institutions should be established to oversee AI development.

Let Musk’s recent conversation with Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, serve as proof of precisely this view. You can watch that interview here and follow Musk’s words. I have already done so.

It is possible that Dr. Przegalinska and a significant portion of society have fallen victim to mainstream media narratives. The political left and left-leaning news outlets wage a fierce battle against Musk. I do not know exactly when this battle began, but it certainly started no later than the moment Musk acquired Twitter and revealed how the US government (which was also left-leaning at the time) had influenced the censorship and banning of users on that social network.

The US government and left-leaning media want to force Musk into compliance (and censorship). Left-leaning media regularly produce nonsense about him and constantly predict the end of X (formerly Twitter), while Elon’s platform records increases in user activity, with its main problem being advertisers intimidated by the media. In fact, one only needs to look at Musk’s English-language profile on Wikipedia to realize the kind of absurdities we are dealing with. Not long ago, I saw on that profile that Musk is an anti-Semite and supports white supremacy. Today we see such information:

Yesterday an anti-Semite and racist, today “merely” accused of racism and transphobia. We shall see what we find there in a week or two. Profile edits are going full speed. I checked the edit history, and there are several, sometimes a dozen or more, edits every day.

Technology vs. Humanity -- The "Techno-Optimist" Manifesto

Elon Musk and Sam Altman are the individuals who currently stand at the forefront of technological progress and have been drawing the attention of media and society in recent months. Technological progress is accelerating, which naturally attracts attention and raises concerns. Some of these concerns are certainly justified. So how should the relationship between technology and humanity look? Are there — and if so, where do they lie — boundaries of technological development that humanity should not cross? Should we, and if so how much should we, fear technological progress?

The “Techno-Optimist” manifesto by Andreessen Horowitz attempts to answer these questions. Here are the key tenets of that manifesto, summarized very well by ChatGPT:

Combating misconceptions: The manifesto challenges the negative perception of technology, opposing the view that technology causes job loss, wage depression, and social harm. (Let us remember the context here — this refers to job loss that would result in impoverishment. This problem can be solved by a guaranteed income.)

Technology as the foundation of civilization: It argues that our civilization is fundamentally based on technology, which is the embodiment of human ambition and potential for progress.

Growth as a key element: The manifesto maintains that growth driven by technology is essential for the vitality and well-being of society, contrasting growth with stagnation, which leads to societal decline.

The role of free markets: It advocates for free markets as the most effective way to organize a technology-based economy, promoting decentralization and market discipline.

The techno-capital machine: It describes the synergy between technology and markets, leading to continuous material growth and abundance. This techno-capital machine is seen as a relentless force of progress.

Intelligence as the engine of progress: Emphasizing the central role of intelligence, both human and artificial, the manifesto views AI as a transformative force capable of solving numerous problems and expanding human capabilities.

Energy as the foundation of civilization: The document underscores the importance of energy, advocating for increased energy production, especially from clean sources such as nuclear energy, to improve life worldwide.

Abundance through technology: The manifesto envisions a future in which technology leads to material abundance for all, characterized by falling prices and rising quality of life.

Practical optimism instead of utopian ideals: It embraces what it calls the “Constrained Vision,” preferring empirical testing and individual choice over utopian or apocalyptic visions.

Values and adversaries: The manifesto promotes values such as ambition, merit, courage, and intellectual freedom, while identifying its adversaries as stagnation, authoritarianism, and anti-technology attitudes.

In summary, the “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” advocates for a positive view of technology and its role in human progress, emphasizing the importance of growth, intelligence, energy, and free markets, while challenging negative perceptions and bureaucratic constraints on technological development.

Summary

I am a techno-optimist and I endorse the above manifesto. I believe that individuals like Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and thousands of other leaders, along with the hundreds of thousands of engineers who follow them, constitute the driving force of civilizational development, thanks to which each successive generation falls ill less, wages fewer wars, and lives longer and more happily. It is thanks to the development of technology, and not politicians or popes, that the following curve rises and rises ever faster.

Technological development must, of course, remain under control. Criticism and polemic are essential. However, let us discuss the ideas and actions of individuals or organizations, but judge the individuals themselves as little as possible. Let us base our convictions on verified information and try to converse in the spirit of the global community that we are. In our conversations, let us build, not destroy. I hope that this article will serve as a small brick in building a positive attitude toward technology and the people who develop it.

If you are looking for content about science, technology, and AI, I recommend following these profiles:

Aleksandra Przegalinska

Andrzej Dragan

Maciej Kawecki

Tomasz Rozek