Controlling Technology's Future: A Thousand-Year Struggle for Shared Prosperity

This podcast episode features Rob Johnson interviewing Simon Johnson about his book, "Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over Technology and Prosperity," co-authored with Daron Acemoglu. The central argument challenges the notion that technology's trajectory is inevitable, asserting instead that societies can and must actively shape its development. The discussion highlights how the digital transformation of the past 40 years, including the rise of the internet and generative AI like ChatGPT, has fallen short of its initial promise, contributing to economic and political polarization, job displacement, and significant moral dilemmas such as surveillance and data exploitation. The authors contend that concentrated power in the hands of tech giants, coupled with compromised institutions (politics, media, academia), has allowed technology to serve narrow interests rather than the common good.

The conversation delves into key distinctions, emphasizing the difference between technology that displaces workers and that which augments human capabilities. It critiques the economic confusion that treats markets and technology as inherently benevolent forces, rather than tools to be governed by societal goals. Historical precedents, such as the Suez and Panama Canals and 19th-century monopolies, are invoked to illustrate that technology frequently goes "off course" when unchecked visionaries or powerful entities dominate its implementation. This historical perspective underscores that the current challenges posed by digital technology are not unprecedented, but rather a recurring pattern in human history requiring conscious intervention.

Practical insights and recommendations for reform are a core focus. Simon Johnson outlines three critical areas: establishing robust control over personal data, implementing strong safeguards against workplace and societal surveillance, and addressing the monopolistic tendencies of large tech companies. Specific proposals include the concept of "data unions" (Jaron Lanier) to empower individuals over their data and a "surcharge on corporate profits" (Kim Clausing) for mega-corporations to incentivize breakups and foster diverse business models. The importance of encouraging human cognition, critical thinking, and a plurality of information sources, exemplified by Wikipedia, is stressed as an antidote to over-reliance on single, potentially manipulative, AI "oracles."

The broader implications extend globally, with concerns about "inappropriate technology" derailing development in the Global South by displacing labor-intensive jobs crucial for economic advancement. The episode advocates for the re-establishment of "countervailing power" through civil society organizations, governmental regulation, and official action, drawing parallels to successful movements during the Progressive Era. The ultimate vision is to steer technological change towards a human-centric path that fosters shared prosperity, rather than exacerbating inequality and eroding democratic values, acknowledging that each generation must re-engage in this fundamental conversation about technology's purpose and direction.

control over technology is that there seems to be how we say very little what I might call Commons or or governance influence over the structures that have evolved

the digital transformation of our economies over the past 40 years has been quite quite disappointing and I think uh it's actually contributed to the polarization of our Societies in in the industrial World certainly because of what it's done to jobs and also what it's done to political discourse

we wrote the book to try and make the argument that you can shape technology and you can change the direction in which it goes

it seems there's a confusion in economics that the market and so forth are treated a little bit like deities and technology is being wonderful as opposed to being tools for society to realize its goals

it's really I think a cautionary tale about letting uh Visionaries have all the power and not being able to challenge them when it comes to what exactly you're doing here and what are going to be what's going to be the social impact

sometimes people call that self-censorship I think that's a misnomer it's not self-censive it's really effective censorship that really effective censorship stops you from even thinking about saying certain things

first and first and most important is control over data it's very clear that what has happened is we've we've put a lot of our own information our data our photographs on the internet uh hoping to share them uh with with friends and family and they've been acquired without our permission to train generative AI

one in in particular is not to let I a I choose the path of displacing workers entirely but perhaps augmenting being a complementary with an e raising of the productivity of workers which will augment their wage or augment their training or uh how you say Inspire further employment

you need countervailing power to offset the the very large monopolies that develop around new technology

this is about um encouraging human cognition human information processing human critical thinking and that's the Cornerstone of everything if we if we become overly reliant on one single supposed Oracle then I think we can become compliant and we become dependent on that Oracle and that is that would be regrettable