Bill Gates recently released an essay on his blog, “Gates Notes” outlining the downsides and upsides to the AI era. This era is already upon us and Gates is both optimistic and worried. Common sentiments for sure. The essay is urgent and calls for action.

Gates outlines some immediate actions that he believes the public and public officials need to work on immediately. To properly manage this new era, he believes we need to:

• Build a new system for managing the transition

• Set aside some jobs for humans

• Rebalance how we tax labor and capital

All sound suggestions but, as he acknowledges, all very complicated to put into action. Of course we don’t know how things will play out. But regardless of how they do, I think certain basic principles should guide action, and policy makers need to respect.

Maintain symmetry

Bad actors can only have an upper hand if good actors are stymied. Good actors can turn bad if they gain too much power without being kept in check (there is a case to be made grey and, unfortunately, on occasion, black hats).

Gates warns that the AI is empowering bad actors to create new bioweapons, initiate complex cyber-attacks quickly, and use AI for deepfakes, fraud, and surveillance. All very true. These become really problematic when good actors are not—or, more relevantly—don’t have access to powerful AI models to prevent and circumvent these actions.

Symmetry may sound defeatist. Is “keeping up” the best we can do? It’s a fair point but I think symmetry is the best we can hope for. Once a technology has been developed, bad actors will find a way to get their hands on it. Regulation can help but the tighter the regulatory fist, the slipperier the bad actors become to squeeze between the cracks.

So, I don’t think that positive asymmetry is possible. The best we can work towards is ensuring good actors have the tools they need to do good and keep bad actors at bay. Also, symmetry may actually be a way of keeping the power balance.

I’m reading Louis Menand’s excellent book, The Free World. In it he discusses the balance of power in the run up to World War 2 and focuses on “realists” like Neville Chamberlain and E.H. Carr. These men believed that balance is the key to stability. Menand writes,

The goal is to keep the major powers happy enough with what they have and sufficiently intimidated by the other major powers that they don’t start going after weaker states—not because that would violate the sovereignty of weaker states, but because it would upset the balance of power.

_{Menand, Louis. The Free World: Art and Thought in the Cold War (pp. 33-34). (Function). Kindle Edition.}

We know how Chamberlain’s capitulation turned out so the point is in the principle if not the practice. I’m still thinking through how this idea works in practice (especially as it applies to the AI challenge), but I find it very intriguing and worth thinking about.

Market forces need to be allowed to work

Gates rightly warns that AI is and will continue to take jobs away from humans. He argues that systems need to be put into place to assist those in “transition” to new activities. I agree. He also intriguingly argues for a policy he calls “Human Reserves” — jobs that are set aside only for humans.

He worries that if there are no policies in place protecting certain roles from AI, market forces will drive companies to replace human-performed roles with automation for any job AI and robotics can do. This will be based largely on cost competition and time to market.

But this is all supply side. I think there is a strong argument that market forces will probably work both ways. On the demand side, people may not want AI and robotics driven products and experiences. This will not only protect certain roles but also create a host of new ones—something Gates mentions.

My wife and I work in the education space and develop educational programs using AI. But we see the pushback on AI-developed content mainly in the instructional design space. Some of it is from people fearing job loss and a general pessimism about whether AI can do as good of a job as they can.

But much of the resistance is based on principle: even if a learner can’t tell whether something is AI developed or created by a human, this group doesn’t want AI-developed (or at least fully AI-developed) content. This sentiment is based on belief that using lived experience to influence content design produces a different kind of thing from synthesized content that is generated from a computer even if the end result from both has a strong family resemblance.

I think this will be true across industries. We’ve seen this for centuries at a smaller and more focused scale. For example, people could easily buy and consume mass-produced, lab-driven food products (I consumed my fair share of Swanson TV dinners as a kid) but many simply do not want them. They’re cheap, easy to heat up, and provide some semblance of nutrition. But many (rightly in my opinion) do not consider them “real” food. If you have the option, opt for something homemade or a crafted from wholesome food sources.

While Gates’s position is important and probably will be necessary, policies to protecting certain jobs should be done carefully as market forces allowed to work may partially nullify the need for them.

Act based on first principles

Closed after 5 years in the community

A restaurant in our neighborhood closed suddenly. It was a nice place. It was beautifully decorated, had excellent Italian food and a solid cocktail and wine program, and it was in complex in a thriving, active community. We never ate or drank there. The restaurant was frequently empty when we walked past despite many specials and deals they would run.

We’re bar people (we like to sit at the bar even when we’re eating a meal). The bartenders at this restaurant knew how to serve drinks but were not great at hospitality. They rarely talked to us beyond serving us, they’d be constantly cleaning or stocking while we were there, or they’d congregate at the end of the bar talking to each other or other waitstaff. We never really felt welcome.

We do frequent the restaurant literally right next door. While the place doesn’t have the chattiest bartenders, we have been able to engage with the waitstaff there and they always make us feel welcome and like they’re glad we’re there. We’ve gotten to know a couple of the people by first name, and they remember us when we show up.

Now, running a successful restaurant is complex and only the owners know the myriad reasons for why this restaurant actually closed. But I can say that the bar staff at the closed restaurant didn’t excel at the fundamentals. They failed at what could roughly be called first principles: things that make great wait staff great. Great wait staff make their patrons feel welcome, treat them like family, comp them once in a while and give them samples of things they’re interested in, pay attention to them and learn their names. These are table (bar top) stakes.

Occam’s Razor

People like Gates that focus on fixing things tend to gravitate towards complex solutions because the problems are complex. Sometimes complex solutions are needed. But as William of Ockham has taught us, they should be no more complex than they need to be. Expanding on Ockham’s principle, I’ll also add that solutions should excel at the fundamentals.

While it’s certainly a stretch to go from running a bar program at a small, community restaurant to the problems Gates outlines in his essay, I do think that addressing AI concerns and advantages should be based on first principles. A first principle is a foundational idea that can’t be reduced to something else and is a necessary part of what you’re trying to accomplish.

Part of determining what an essential, first principle is in any domain is to use an evolutionary principle: what are those things that, despite numerous changes, persist over time? What has survived? Just because the answer to these questions have staying power doesn’t guarantee that they’ll be applicable to the future. But it does tilt the probability that they will heavily in their favor.

We can come up with guiding first principles by looking at the areas that AI is currently creating risk:

• People need basic needs met

• People want security (that their basic needs will be met, that they’ll be able to self-actualize, that they can take care of their loved ones, that they won’t be harmed)

• People want the opportunity to progress

• People need to do thing that are meaningful to them and that give them purpose

Despite any change that AI and robotics may bring, these are some of the basic things humans care about and most likely have always cared about. Whatever solutions we come up with for dealing with the AI shift should focus primarily on preserving or fostering these basic human drives. This can be done with AI as a fully integrated part of our lives—AI and human flourishing need not be at odds.

Create the future

Karl Marx famously said, “Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. What is crucial, however, is to change it.” This appears at the end of the eleventh note he wrote on the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach’s ideas. In the same note, he wrote this:

The materialist doctrine that humans are products of circumstances and upbringing and that, therefore, men who change are products of new circumstances and a different upbringing, forgets that circumstances are changed by men themselves . . .

One doesn’t have to buy into Marx’s entire philosophy (I don’t) to agree with this sentiment. When it comes to the impact of AI, we should create the future we want. AI is a tool. Let’s work to make it a powerful and useful one that serves us and the planet.