How delusional is it possible to be about AI?

The Starmer government's position on AI is frighteningly delusional.

The Starmer government’s position on AI is frighteningly delusional.

A Starmer aide has been quoted saying that on AI "the UK needs to move forward and seize the opportunity of not being Europe"; that AI will deliver "a level of productivity growth that means everybody in the world, in ten years’ time, is going to be more productive than the most productive person in the world today"; and that these preposterously unlikely advancements will help Rachel Reeves "balance the books".

Magic beans

It’s clear that AI can be extremely useful in automating painstaking data collection and aggregation processes, as well as many other things, but it’s beyond delusional to imagine that it’s going to transform the economy so dramatically that within ten years every single worker is going to become more productive than the most productive worker in the world today.

Of course it will help with time-consuming bureaucratic tasks, but how on earth is it going to create such staggering productivity gains for millions upon millions of ordinary workers with ordinary jobs?

How will it lay bricks, unblock drains, or pick fruit so much more quickly? How is it going to vastly increase the productivity of chefs, hairdressers, retail workers, electricians, gym instructors, agricultural workers, HGV drivers, and all other kinds of workers, to such an extent that they become more productive in a decade than the most productive worker in the world today?

Sure, it might help to make marginal gains by handling invoices, supply chains, accounts, and timetables somewhat more efficiently, if they all learn to use the technology, but this isn’t what Starmer’s aide is claiming is it?

They’re claiming that workers in every sector are all going to make such extraordinary leaps forward in productivity over the next decade that everyone will be more productive than the most productive worker is today.

It’s such an extraordinary overstatement of the gains that they’re way into delusional magic beans territory.

Book balancing

It’s just phenomenally stupid to imagine that the big benefit of such unbelievably unrealistic productivity gains would be that Rachel Reeves will be able to balance the books a bit better.

To begin with, the idea that the national economy works like a household or small business that needs to balance the books is just more economically illiterate baby talk from Labour.

As Jonathan Portes put it, imagining that these absurdly improbable productivity gains might help with the spending review is "like saying an alien invasion would complicate planning for next week's awayday".

The UK economy is facing all kinds of real problems that hinder productivity. Crumbling infrastructure; the demographic ageing crisis; failing public services; privatisation profiteering; massive regional inequality; inadequate public transport outside of London; rampant property-hoarding …

All of these real problems require real solutions, not some pie in the sky fantasy about AI curing the unbalanced books.

It’s an imaginary solution to the wrong problem to be focusing on in the first place.

US protectionism

Starmer’s aide is stating that the UK government wants to turn its back on the EU, and try to follow the US approach to AI.

The two things that have characterised Donald Trump’s second term so far have been fanatical deregulation and economic protectionism, so it’s absurd for the UK government to imagine that they’re going to be allowed to hitch a ride on Trump’s AI coat tails.

Even before Trump came to power, the Biden administration was attempting to stamp out overseas AI advancements with (spectacularly backfired) measures like sticking embargoes on the export of AI chips to China.

With Trump already hammering traditional US allies with tariffs and trade sanctions too, it’s vanishingly unlikely that they’ll be minded to allow another country like the UK to share in their AI spoils.

Unregulated AI

In seeking to distance themselves from the EU’s attempts to regulate AI use, and aligning with the US approach, Starmer’s government are signalling their intention to go down the unregulated route.

Allowing AI engines to loot creative industry content is a dangerous road to go down, especially when the creative industries are one of the few remining fields in which the UK is still punching miles above its weight on the world stage.

The UK creative industry sector was worth £124.6 billion in Gross Added value to the UK economy in 2022. That’s 6% of the economy, and an enormous amount of jobs.

It seems like a no-brainer to consider protecting our precious creative industries from the threat of unregulated AI content looting, but the mood in the Starmer camp seems to be a giddy delusion that AI is going to save Rachel Reeves bacon, so attempts to consider the potential damage and mitigate it are out of the question.

Who gets the gains?

It should be obvious to all that under capitalism, technological advances often work to the disadvantage of workers and communities.

Consider how self-service tills in supermarkets mean fewer workers, which results in less cash in people’s pockets in the local community, which means less demand for other local businesses, while supermarket executives and shareholders divide up the gains for themselves.

Instead of fantasising about how AI is going to turn us all into super-workers, isn’t it worth considering how AI is more likely to replace a lot of workers, rather than augment them?

And if AI performs the tasks that people used to receive salaries for doing, who gets the gains?

If the gains are divided between the private owners of the AI engines and the private owners of the businesses, where does that leave ordinary people?

UK workers have already suffered the longest period of wage stagnation on record, and the mood of public discontent is palpable.

How are people going to react if they see AI start erasing even more jobs, to deliver even bigger private profits, while our politicians tell us that it’s actually a magic cure-all that we should be thankful for?

A house of cards

Starmer’s inner circle seem to be constructing a house of cards of AI delusions.

Yes there are some big potential upsides in terms of easing bureaucratic tasks, but what’s the benefit if all of the gains are siphoned off in private profits, especially when the government seems so intolerant to the basic concept that wealth needs to be redistributed to prevent soaring inequality?

It’s absolutely delusional to claim that within a decade AI is going to make every worker more productive than the most productive worker today.

The child-like faith in AI saving Rachel Reeves’ skin demonstrates an unwillingness to even address, let alone deal with any of the country’s real economic problems.

Aligning with the US approach to AI looks particularly dangerous given the Trump administration’s protectionist agenda and fanatical zeal for extreme deregulation.

And it seems extraordinarily short-sighted to focus on the profoundly unrealistic fantasy that AI is going to turn all of us into super-workers, while ignoring the threat that AI poses to jobs and Britain’s precious creative industries.