welcome to hardtalk i'm steven bowditch zach kerr. artificial intelligence is the latest technological advance to be labour transformational from healthcare to the law to journalism many tasks carried out by people could soon be the domain of intelligent machines. is that good news? not necessarily. leave aside nightmare visions of a terminator style apocalypse �*s, my guest today, daron acemoglu reckons technological progress often reinforces inequality and exploitation. so, how do we make sure the tech revolution works for the many, not the few.

daron acemoglu, in massachusetts, welcome to hardtalk. massachusetts, welcome to hardtalk— hardtalk. thank you, it's a deli . ht hardtalk. thank you, it's a delight to _ hardtalk. thank you, it's a delight to be _ hardtalk. thank you, it's a delight to be on _ hardtalk. thank you, it's a delight to be on the - hardtalk. thank you, it's a - delight to be on the programme. a great pleasure to have you here you have just written a book power and progress which goes through the impacts of some of the great technological shift in human history over the past millennium. would you say that artificial intelligence, the supremacy of the algorithm, represents one of those transformational moment for humankind? i’m transformational moment for humankind?— transformational moment for humankind? ., , ., humankind? i'm not sure that it does but there _ humankind? i'm not sure that it does but there is _ humankind? i'm not sure that it does but there is a _ humankind? i'm not sure that it does but there is a fair- humankind? i'm not sure that it does but there is a fair chance l does but there is a fair chance that it will have transformative effects. it is commonplace to compare it to

the fire, or to the rise of industrial machinery starting on the 18th century, it remains to be seen whether it will be as important for our productivity and our lives, but we are already seeing some of the deep effects on how we organise our democracy, and inequality in modern nations. maybe you are not quite so sure about how dramatic its transformational impact will be but you certainly seem to be pretty sure you are sceptical. you say ai will fuel inequality disempower workers", choked democracy? how? bi disempower workers", choked democracy? how?— democracy? how? ai is a continuation _ democracy? how? ai is a continuation of _ democracy? how? ai is a continuation of a - democracy? how? ai is a continuation of a trend i democracy? how? ai is a l continuation of a trend that started perhaps around two years ago, where we have been using digital technologies, for changing how production is organised, who controls information and how we communicate. both digital technologies in general and ai have great promise which i talk

about some of the specific ways in which ai could be transformational or knowledge work for example, but in practice they have actually boosted inequality because they are being used for automation increasing surveillance and also centralising information. i guess all that is true but it on how you look at it with you are a glass half full or glass half empty person. not so long ago i was talking to our former president of estonia and he was telling me with great pride about the degree to which his country now was entirely online, that all citizens are digital citizens who do everything from political interaction to interaction with their healthcare providers and their healthcare providers and their doctors, online. he said, you know what, we believe that this enhances our democracy? absolutely, i think estonia has done a good job and that is where the difficulty is. when you think about the current

effects of technology and where the future will take us you have to hold two conflicting thoughts in your mind at the same time. one is that we have tremendously benefited from industrial technologies, we are healthier, more comfortable, much more prosperous than people used to be 300 years ago and there is tremendous progress that could be beneficial but conflicting with that, there are also a lot of collateral damages, that have been created on the path of so—called progress. and there are many dangerous directions with which these technologies are being pushed. in with which these technologies are being pushed.— are being pushed. in that direction. _ are being pushed. in that direction, you _ are being pushed. in that direction, you advise - are being pushed. in that direction, you advise us i are being pushed. in thatl direction, you advise us to think carefully about history and you talk about, for example, the late 18th and 19th century industrial revolution is, in the united kingdom and western europe and you say in the first phase of that industrial revolution, many

workers suffered stagnant incomes and deterioration with living standards and conditions, and extreme exploitation. and you could point to the fact that for a while, children were employed in the mills and the industrial mills and you could point to the fact air pollution was a terrible problem. this is all true, but does any of that have relevant to the transformational impacts that might come with this digital ai driven evolution?— driven evolution? there is no doubt, that _ driven evolution? there is no doubt, that al _ driven evolution? there is no doubt, that al is _ driven evolution? there is no doubt, that al is very - doubt, that al is very different from the early phase of the british industrial revolution but there is a lot we can learn from the past because the same sort of choices in the same sort of debates were prevalent, and, also, there are some systematic ways in which technology gets captured by current elites to be used in their interests, and against the interest of many people. so what was so

important about the british industrial revolution was that it was truly different from what came before it, it was driven by the vision of people rising from relatively modest backgrounds, and trying to transform society, and that sounds really exciting, but at the end a lot of it exactly like you said, was pretty bad for the working classes, for about eight years, 90 years. the early phase is characterised by steam engines but what that meant was children as young as five or six were sent into horrible minds to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week. life expectancy fell sharply because cities where people started gathering, were so unhealthy, so polluted, infectious diseases run rampant and real wages did not increase, the factory system was a pretty draconian place, with very harsh discipline. long hours, little economy.—

harsh discipline. long hours, little economy. definitely, you sa all little economy. definitely, you say all that — little economy. definitely, you say all that and _ little economy. definitely, you say all that and i _ little economy. definitely, you say all that and i can - little economy. definitely, you say all that and i can almost . say all that and i can almost feel and see and hear the giants of tech in the united states, from bill gates to elon musk, rolling their eyes and saying, come on get real, professor, what we are delivering to the people right now are technologies that are actually in many ways, opening up actually in many ways, opening up knowledge and information, and extremely egalitarian ways, to humanity? is that not the truth? ~ ., ., ~ truth? well, i do not think that is the _ truth? well, i do not think that is the truth, - truth? well, i do not think that is the truth, that - that is the truth, that potential was there, there were many inspired people in the 19605 many inspired people in the 1960s and 70s with thought that computers, personal computers, digital technology more generally would be liberating for workers and citizens but thatis for workers and citizens but that is not the way things have turned out. most of the digital technologies are controlled by big corporations, inequality

has skyrocketed in many countries, the uk and the united states included, in the united states included, in the united states included, in the united states when you look at real wages, they have actually declined for people with less than college, for over 1t0 years. than college, for over 40 ears. �* than college, for over 40 ears. ~ , ., than college, for over 40 ears. ~ ., y than college, for over 40 ears. ~ ., , ., years. are you not guilty of scapegoating _ years. are you not guilty of scapegoating technology, | years. are you not guilty of| scapegoating technology, if years. are you not guilty of- scapegoating technology, if you blame technology for that, you can blame all sorts of other things including a whole free—market capitalist ideology, that perhaps one could identify with reagan and hair and a neoliberal move in the 1980s, that has got nothing to do with technology, that is ideology, not technology? in the book with simon we do put a lot of emphasis on the institutional changes and the changes and division of corporations, the shareholder value revolution, which said it is ok tojust value revolution, which said it is ok to just squeeze the work is ok to just squeeze the work is harder so we can give a better return to the shareholders. but my own research shows, that the

application of digital technologies, was central to how the wage structures changed in the united states, you cannot understand how changes in the united states with robots controlling machinery replacing little skilled workers from their previous tasks and jobs.— workers from their previous tasks and jobs. tasks and “obs. let's bring the down to tasks and jobs. let's bring the down to level _ tasks and jobs. let's bring the down to level we _ tasks and jobs. let's bring the down to level we can - tasks and jobs. let's bring the down to level we can all- down to level we can all understand, our own lives and how we operate, i can imagine there are people watching and listening to us who are now using chatgpt to help them do a work presentation or if they are a student help them to write the next essay and they are embracing that technology they are finding it extraordinarily useful for them. now you appear to be saying, you know what be very careful because this is actually doing structural damage, notjust to your life but to the society and economy in which you live? i but to the society and economy in which you live?— in which you live? i think the answer to — in which you live? i think the answer to your _ in which you live? i think the answer to your question - in which you live? i think the i answer to your question comes back to the point i made earlier. ai has great promise

and potentialfor great earlier. ai has great promise and potential for great damage, the generative ai and potential for great damage, the generative al or the large language models could be a new tool for augmenting what we do in knowledge work, white—collar work, journalism, academia, it is not currently going in that direction because actually, gpt four and chatgpt have very impressive —looking results, but deep down, they are not super useful for knowledge workers at the moment. but at the same time many of these things are already being used for centralising information further, and replacing workers that used to do simple analytical tasks such as writing tasks or summarising news and so on, that is only going to expand. it is the choice we have to make on how we will develop these technologies, and how we will use them, that is the critical one, especially when we are at the cusp of more and more investment in this generative ai. �* , ., investment in this generative ai. ., , investment in this generative

al. a, , ~ ., ai. as an economist you know the these _ ai. as an economist you know the these technologies - the these technologies including ai are already being employed across the industrialised world, and you also know that if you look at united kingdom or the united states, have almost structurally full employment. yes, we have people out of work but not very many and job markets are very tight, and if you look at, for example consultancy groups like pwc they've analysed what they think will happen as a result of ai, they wrote a report saying we'll robots really stealerjobs? they said some jobs will go as a result of automation by ai but they will be out wide by the creation of newjobs be out wide by the creation of new jobs that will be out wide by the creation of newjobs that will come, thanks to the expansion of the economy as a result in large part of the uses of ai. so, net result? they say, expansion ofjobs, not loss ofjobs. they say, expansion of “obs, not loss of jobs.�* not loss of “obs. yes, i wish that were _ not loss of jobs. yes, i wish that were true. _ not loss of jobs. yes, i wish

that were true. the - not loss of jobs. yes, i wish l that were true. the potential when you look at earlier phases of industrial growth, the three decades that followed world war ii in the uk and europe and united states, that is exactly what happened. there was rapid automation but at the same time new tasks were created for workers that notjust generated employment but actually insured inequality fell, real wages rose very rapidly. but that was a choice about institutions, as you pointed out, do we completely given to the wishes of the ceo and shareholders, and it was a very important choice about the direction of technology, the current direction of ai will not create a jobless future in the next three decades, we will not be sitting at home and playing video games, but if it goes along the same path of the previous days of technology it will boost inequality quite substantially.— will boost inequality quite substantially. will boost inequality quite substantiall. ., , substantially. you seem to be preposing _ substantially. you seem to be preposing we _ substantially. you seem to be proposing we need _ substantially. you seem to be proposing we need to - substantially. you seem to be proposing we need to learn i substantially. you seem to be i proposing we need to learn from

the past and we have history and economics and politics altogether, you say learn from the past and look at how we have ameliorated on the 19th century the worst impacts of industrialisation by workers forming unions, political parties representing the workers, rules and regulations been bought in and you say we need to do the same again, and the 20 century? we need to learn how wisely to regulate and engage workers in the process of, responsibly deploying ai. so when you look around the world how do you actually see that working, in practice? actually see that working, in ractice? ~ ., �* actually see that working, in practice?— actually see that working, in ractice? ~ ., �* , practice? well, i don't see it workin: practice? well, i don't see it working too _ practice? well, i don't see it working too well _ practice? well, i don't see it working too well at - practice? well, i don't see it working too well at the - practice? well, i don't see it - working too well at the moment i think the key is, we need a 2—pronged approach, in the past that has happened that has happened without a map we were lucky at times but we need both to build institutions for better voice and better sharing but we also need to push technology in a more pro— human direction. i think both of

these are very difficult things and we have been failing at them. when i say about technology being the more pro— human direction, use technology to increase workers contribution to production, create new tasks for them provide better information for them notjust automation and monitoring. i also mean using it for citizens information, for example estonia citizens can participate better in political decision—making we know from estonia and taiwan it works quite well, look at what facebook has done for social media and other social media outlets. what generative ai is likely to do with the brakes and more powerful disinformation is a very different path. and the institutions aspect, you put yourfinger institutions aspect, you put your finger on institutions aspect, you put yourfinger on it, completely your finger on it, completely rightly yourfinger on it, completely rightly it is critical but we are in the middle of one of the strongest slides of democratic strength all around the world, how will we build new institutions especially when the labour movement of the future has to be very different

from the labour movement of the past, all of those are key questions we have to confront. famously companies like google were not too keen on unions and one could argue that people like elon musk are fundamentally individualists and maybe even libertarians. but the argument would run that thatis but the argument would run that that is why the united states has been the absolute cockpit of dynamic creativity when it comes to tech and ai and rolling out the very best creative new technologies. that's why the us has a competitive advantage over countries like china. because it is much less fated, it is much less interventionist and regulated. we do not accept there is some truth in that? you have to hold two conflicting thoughts in mind that the same time and yes you 100% right, l that the same time and yes you 100% right, i don't think silicon valley in its current form would exist without some amount of individualism and entrepreneurial risk—taking and some of the move fast and break

things attitude and you're absolutely right on valley is a great innovation machine and we are very fortunate to have benefited from some of the innovations it's created but also at the same time, the same culture of silicon valley has been the thing that's pushed us towards more and more automation, less and less intention to what the average worker needs inside an elitist attitude towards technology and i think with the advent of ai, all of that could accelerate and create a bigger disaster, so the question is can we have the good of that energy and entrepreneurial risk—taking without some of the bad and the answer is yes, again, we can learn from history. united states has always been an entrepreneurial ordination but technology and the corporate sector was under institutional controls and regulation, it was no less innovative in the age of early computers, aerospace innovations, antibiotics. but it was that energy was being channelled towards things that

were better for humanity and channelled towards things that were betterfor humanity and i think we can recreate that. thtre think we can recreate that. are ou think we can recreate that. are you somebody _ think we can recreate that. are you somebody who, like elon musk, actually, not so long ago, just a few months ago, has begun to worry that al may take us to a place where we are no longer masters of the machine but the machines may become masters of us? how far do you go down the doomsday track? trio. go down the doomsday track? no, i'm not worried _ go down the doomsday track? idrr, i'm not worried about that. i think the current architecture of ai is unlikely to create anything like the human mind andi anything like the human mind and i also worry that some of the discussion of existential risk really takes our attention off the more mundane and daily users of ai and digital technologies that are inequality generating, but a centralising information, but are boosting the inequities that exist. i think a very important point that hg wells captured in the time machine when he said, you know, when talking of human dominion about nature, we forget that it's

always entangled with human dominion over other humans. that's the danger. we are using ai in a way to subjugate people, reduce their autonomy, reduce the agency, reduce their contribution to production and that's being done because machines have taken over but because a small cadre of people are shaping the future of ai. what we see right now in the world economy is a fundamental shift away from assumptions of globalisation, open trading networks to something where borders are much more important, where national interest is focused upon and where, frankly, many governments, democratic and nondemocratic, are talking in terms of protection. protecting their own interests. do you see this as an extremely worrying shift or not? i this as an extremely worrying shift or not?— shift or not? i think we could overdo it _ shift or not? i think we could overdo it and _ shift or not? i think we could overdo it and collapse - shift or not? i think we could overdo it and collapse the i overdo it and collapse the world trading order would have

bad economic consequences and probably make international cooperation much harder. but i think our previous preconceptions about globalisation also not completely on target, just like technology, there was this view that led globalisation read, if china wants to explore cheap products but that all of the producers in the united states or in europe go bankrupt and then the market will take care of it. same sort of attitude when it comes to technology. let's not worry about the inequality issues, technology rip and then the market process will make sure that people are allocated to appropriate jobs and they all benefit. and what we have experienced from globalisation is that when that takes place in an uncontrolled way, it can also create a lot of hardship, so i think some degree of worrying about, you know, what globalisation is doing is fine but i really don't want the world to turn its back towards international trade, exchange of ideas. and i

think the heart of the china us tensions are better handled if we can find a cooperative environment but i think that does not necessarily mean that we have to completely open all borders to everything. you wrote a best _ borders to everything. you wrote a best selling - borders to everything. you wrote a best selling book in 2012, headlined why nations fail. we've had a decade since you wrote it, and more. have you, innocence, reconsidered it because your fundamental message seems to be do you know what? nations with strong institutions, separation of powers, strong civil society, democracy in the end are more likely to prosper than those that don't have those pillars. well, you know, look at us and china today. maybe you got it wrong. china today. maybe you got it wront. ~ ., china today. maybe you got it wront.~ ., , wrong. well, of course, maybe i not it wrong. well, of course, maybe i got it wrong. — wrong. well, of course, maybe i got it wrong, but _ wrong. well, of course, maybe i got it wrong, but i _ wrong. well, of course, maybe i got it wrong, but i don't - wrong. well, of course, maybe i got it wrong, but i don't think i got it wrong, but i don't think the evidence so far disproves any of that high—level claim.

inclusive of institutions which are embedded in democratic decision—making and openness to new ideas have proven to be the best guide to innovation and to limiting inequality while encouraging economic growth and i think the united states has done worse when its democracy has weakened. same thing for europe. china is a new experiment. it has had very rapid growth under state control and all historical examples like china has been afraid of innovation. what china has managed with al, perhaps, it has intensified that, it is tried to find a path to control innovation while also enshrining the control of the chinese communist party and chinese elites on the political system. but you are already seeing the cracks. the reason why there's so much surveillance, there so much oppression in china,

there's so much of nationalism is because you're not able to contain the middle—class in all of these aspirations such as a centralised system and you are also seeing innovation is not working as well in china as its proponents claim i think we're going to see a reckoning in the chinese system but the international context, the geopolitical context you raised, the wildcard. i don't know what _ raised, the wildcard. i don't know what it _ raised, the wildcard. i don't know what it crosstalk. | raised, the wildcard. i don't know what it crosstalk. a raised, the wildcard. i don't - know what it crosstalk. a final talk. turkey. you are of turkish armenian heritage and you medically during the recent turkish election campaign that you supported the opposition and wanted to see an end to erdowan's rule after being in power for so long erdowan's rule after being in powerfor so long and erdowan's rule after being in power for so long and becoming more authoritarian over the year and the turkish people have a choice and they looked at their economy which is misfiring badly and yet, they decided to stick with him. == decided to stick with him. -- erdogan's- — decided to stick with him. -- erdogan's- i— decided to stick with him. » erdogan's. i think i have sent it several times in the past that whenever i have a different view of the turkish is going to do, erdogan seems to be right and i seem to be wrong but don't forget turkey

is a deeply polarised country. about 50% of the population do not like erdogan's regime. they were really keen on creating a new turkey that changed government and changed economic system. and erdogan has a very loyal base. part of it is because exactly the cultural issues. he liberated the more conservative, less educated, more anatolian parts of turkey but also, he controlled state resources and the media. turkey is still sort of a semi democracy but it's the weakest part of the democracy that essentially all of tv and print media is under the government's control and the government also controls the resources, so, for instance, the earthquake which is really historic event, you know, the areas that were worst hit by the earthquake actually

gave 70% of their votes to erdogan. why? controls the patronage networks you have to control —— take that brought full —— take that broadly into account. he is a skilled politician, i have to give out. daron acemoglu, thank you very much forjoining us on hardtalk.— much forjoining us on hardtalk. ., ~ ,, , hardtalk. thank you, stephen. this was fantastic. _ hello. sunday was another very warm, or even hot, day, with temperatures peaking at around 32 celsius. that heat and humidity giving rise to some dramatic skies as some thunderstorms kicked off through the afternoon and into the evening.

if we take a look back at the radar picture, we can see that we had some storms in northern scotland, some across northern england and then, this clump of thunderstorms — this quite big, organised area of storms — that drifted westwards across the midlands towards wales. so, as we head through monday, really, it's more of the same — more spells of sunshine but still the chance for some thunderstorms with that heat and humidity. temperatures to start the day between ten and 17 degrees, so a very warm start to the day, quite a muggy start. for most, a dry start, but a little bit of rain to clear away from parts of wales, maybe some extra cloud in the far south—west and a few showers even from the word go. and into the afternoon, as the sun heats the land, well, those big shower clouds will bubble up once again, particularly across parts of southern england into the midlands and wales. some of these thunderstorms could be really quite vicious with a lot of rain in a short space of time, gusty winds and some hail. western counties of northern ireland, south west scotland and perhaps more especially the north of scotland also prone to some of these

downpours and thunderstorms but as ever with these weather set—ups, there will be places that fall through the gaps and stay completely dry. another very, very warm day — temperatures widely the mid to high 20s. somewhere could again get to 30 degrees. we will continue to see some big showers and thunderstorms in places during monday evening, many of them fading, though, overnight into tuesday. we'll see some areas of low cloud around some of these western coasts. it is another pretty warm night in prospect. and then, for tuesday — well, the greatest chance for showers will be found across the western side of the uk. further east, not as many showers, more dry weather, plenty of sunshine. still feeling very warm, indeed. highest temperatures at this stage likely to be down towards the south — up to around 29, possibly 30 degrees for parts of central southern england. as we look deeper into the week, high pressure remains firmly in charge but as we pick up more of an easterly breeze, well, temperatures will drop backjust a little. still, though, feeling very warm indeed. mostly dry with some sunshine.

live from london, this is bbc news. british mps investigating whether borisjohnson misled parliament are set to conclude their inquiry following his resignation on friday. at least 10 people have died after a wedding bus crashed

in southeastern australia.