The Pilot’s Compass: AI Boosterism Should Stop, But It Won’t: There’s Too Much At Stake
Today, AI Is Either Displacing Human Labour Or Solving Machine-Created Problems
Get clear direction with The Pilot's Compass: freely available, opinion-based research notes from Pilot Research, offered via our website and LinkedIn
Boosterism, An Historical Economic Trend With A Surprisingly Long History
I will always admit my own ignorance. As often as that occurs, for this particular note, I had thought the term “boosterism” was relatively recent. It was particularly brought into my focus by British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson; and, as some of the press labelled his approach to policy, “Boris boosterism”. Given the rabid positivity infecting the promotion of AI by the overwhelming majority of its vendors, I felt that defining it as AI boosterism was, if not new and exciting, an accurate representation of what we are witnessing. Turns out boosterism has been around as a term since the expansion west of the US population, with cities and regions engaged in overstating their advantages in order to attract people.
This is true, to some degree, of all emerging technologies; however, in the case of AI the scale of what’s at stake is much, much larger. I wrote about AI being “... too big to fail,” in another Pilot’s Compass note. If on reading that if you believe that even some part of my argument is true - that it’s not just money, but effort and reputations too - then we’re witnessing boosterism on a level not yet achieved by technology (okay, maybe nuclear energy, I mean, according to the mid 20th century, we were all meant to be driving around in nuclear-powered cars… right?).
Defining AI Boosterism? Ask Who Benefits
Overselling the, perhaps imagined, infrastructure of cities to attract settlers is a lot like the boosterism that pervades AI currently. How can we define it?
Unbound optimism - there can only be radical, even seismic, positive change to the way we do business, live our lives and, all of this is good: without question. Worried about jobs for people? No problem! New jobs we can’t currently think of will emerge to create work for people. That approach always works out, just ask artisan manufacturers after mechanisation in the industrial revolution.
Risk? What risk? - the risk of adopting the latest, greatest technology is, well, non-existent because, if you don’t, you’re a dinosaur in the path of a meteor shaped by all your competitors that do adopt.
Promotion without question - act now! Don’t miss this opportunity! You’ve been selected (okay, that last one may just be my spam email folder). Creating urgency around purchase, implementation, and use only echoes the old saying, “Act in haste, repent at leisure.”
Profit first - let’s be honest with ourselves, who is pushing the sale and use of a technology? The answer is people who are motivated to sell it. Does it work? Is it appropriate? Does it align with our values, standards, mission or, the sales quota being chased by the rep?
Solutions will solve everything - don’t worry about it, technology, or, something else, will resolve all those issues that the technology you're using may / will create. An unhappy workforce? We’ll find new work for them, or, they will be provided for by some new opportunity we’re, ahem, currently unable to define.
All of this sums to an almost incalculable (perhaps we should ask AI?) level of fear of missing out (FOMO) that is forged, stoked, and promoted by those who fall into one (or both) of two camps:
People who have invested money, effort, and reputation into the technology - those people who have engaged with what can / should be identified as AI boosterism. There is too much on the line, failure is not an option in their narratives.
People who stand to gain, personally, from “selling” the technology in question - the obvious example here is sales professionals, but it’s not just sales that stand to gain. Those who market, opine, and provide advice on the technology are all potential boosters.
Bodybuilding May Have Become Relevant To Technology: Cuts Versus Gains (So I’m Told)
I cannot and will not deny the potential gains of AI-powered automation. They are of the exact type as any other technology we use to improve productivity; however, we must also accept there may be a human cost associated with that productivity gain. Currently, I assert that the majority of AI use cases that actually deliver measurable return are the result of one of two factors:
Cuts: AI technologies displacing human effort therefore reducing cost - the next iteration of robotic process automation (RPA), AI and AI agents take on work that traditionally was paid human labour. Just like almost every technology that has had a measurable economic impact, from agricultural machinery to manufacturing automation.
Gains: highly specialised high-data, high-speed use cases that humans cannot achieve - from high-speed trading profiting from tiny differences in markets to mass personalisation of online marketing, there are clearly some things which humans can’t do.
The potential applications of AI are phenomenal, for example examining medical scans to assess anomalies at speed and scale, to finding new blockbuster drugs. But there is little balance in the conversation about AI and if you entertain the astronomical highs of potential good: you must equally entertain the opposite, negative outcomes.
Like Agent Mulder, I Want To Believe
I want to believe that AI technology will improve outcomes for everyone, but in its current state, the scope of its benefits is pretty much the same as any other technology. AI technologies either serve cost-cutting use cases which will squeeze human labour or meet use cases that only exist as a result of previous technology adoption. In both of these cases, it will make some people who are incentivised to promote and sell it wealthier, and in cost-cutting uses take away work from many other people who have no obvious path to sustaining themselves and their families.
As a buyer or user of AI technology, perhaps instead of falling head-first into FOMO, we should work to understand how it could improve outcomes for you, your organisation, and all those people who work with - and buy from - you. Technology for technology’s sake is not a good answer to any serious question (and it pains me to say that, I love technology).
By first identifying the need and how it benefits your people, be them employees, partners, or customers, whether it’s AI or a new coffee machine, technology acquisitions will pay back bigger, demonstrable returns.
Whatever Direction Your Compass Points…
Thank you for reading this Pilot’s Compass note. It will be available on both Pilot Research's website and LinkedIn. Is it possible to tackle this subject in around a thousand words? Of course not. My hope is that it’s brief enough to take the time to read and - agree or disagree - it perhaps proved somewhat thought-provoking. I welcome your comments, feedback, and ideas at tom@pilotresearch.co.uk
