AI: Considerations for people who make decisions - Bert Hubert's writings
Skip to Main Menu
Recently I gave two presentations in quick succession to the Dutch Network of Government Service Providers and the Dutch Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation about AI. In these two different and brief presentations, I hoped to share some insights that would be useful to the people currently at the helm, the people who can or must make decisions about AI policy. Many thanks to the NPD and AWTI for the invitations and the stimulating discussions!
🇳🇱 There is also a Dutch version of this post.
This article originated with these two presentations. The first, at the NPD, focused on the concrete challenges facing decision-makers. The second, at the AWTI, was about what is needed to build a trustworthy (European) AI infrastructure. And, for that matter, also touched on what that actually means. After these presentations I started writing, and eventually came up with this article.
While writing, I discovered just how challenging the subject really is. There are passionate advocates of AI, and there are people who believe it is the devil incarnate. These camps are so polarized that it is impossible to write something that everyone will be happy with.
It is, however, entirely possible to write an article that makes everyone angry about some part. So here goes.
I do hope that both supporters and opponents will come away from this piece a little wiser. Perhaps there is even one thing we can all agree on: what exactly is the rush? Does every municipality really need to deploy Copilot this year? Did Dutch parliament really have to roll it out for everyone already?
What follows is not a “both sides” argument. For people who utterly dislike AI, you’ll find below that AI genuinely can do some remarkable things. For AI enthusiasts, I have a long list of reasons to think carefully about whether it is really such a good idea though.
Overall, I am deeply concerned that we are moving way too fast, and I don’t think that is an unreasonable position given the facts outlined below.
Spoilers — click here for an extended summary<br>AI as a phenomenon is capable of truly remarkable things, and scientists won a Nobel Prize for creating a very useful one. Whether large language models are actually beneficial for organizations as a whole is another matter. Using AI to produce larger documents more quickly, only for other departments to summarize them again with AI, is not progress. AI is also highly disruptive to organizational career structures: where will your future senior staff come from if AI takes over junior-level work? And will senior staff really enjoy spending their careers checking AI-generated output?
Organizations are experiencing a strong Fear Of Missing Out that pushes them to adopt AI as quickly as possible. Yet despite how impressive AI really is, there is no urgency for most companies and institutions. If AI ultimately proves to be a good idea, it will still be there next year. Sometimes it seems as though people believe that if they don’t deploy now, they’ll never be able to catch up later.
AI comes with enormous problems and risks that deserve careful consideration. It emits absurd amounts of CO2 and consumes so much electricity that additional power plants are being built just to support it, all while we’re already struggling with severe grid congestion and increasingly destructive wildfires. The intellectual property status of the data that goes into AI systems is a massive issue, and it also creates uncertainty about who owns the AI’s output.
People brush these concerns aside surprisingly easily, but make no mistake: the AI industry will make them our problem. Try asking Microsoft whether they’ll indemnify you against intellectual property claims arising from Copilot’s output (a fun question to ask). Meanwhile, AI is disastrous for digital sovereignty: it’s surveillance capitalism all over again, imported from the United States. AI providers leak personal data on a massive scale, sometimes even data belonging to their own employees.
It’s difficult to know whom to listen to for advice. After investments totaling three or four trillion dollars, the AI industry itself is now so deeply committed that it can no longer be considered an impartial source. Much of the media, many consultants, and the broader software ecosystem have become so enthusiastic that it’s increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from hype. On the other hand, plenty of people feel so threatened by AI that they can only produce bad news about it. Then there are the moderates, who say, “AI is just a tool; it all depends on how you use it.” That’s true enough, but they never explain how to use it well, or if this is likely to happen, which makes the advice of limited practical value.
The pressure to roll out AI is so great that...