‘The
number of US companies that see artificial intelligence as a threat
has jumped more than fivefold over the past two years, the Financial
Times has reported, citing a survey of corporate filings.
More
than half of America’s largest companies (56%) cited AI as a “risk
factor”
in their most recent annual reports, the outlet cited research by
Arize AI, a platform that tracks public disclosures by large
businesses.
In
2022, the number stood at just 9%, FT noted.
Among
the AI risks mentioned in the financial reports are greater
competition fuelled by concerns that some firms will be faster at
exploiting the technology than others. Also high on the list were
reputational or operational issues stemming from ethical concerns
about AI’s potential impact on human rights, employment, and
privacy.
“AI
may not always operate as intended and data sets may be insufficient
or contain illegal, biased, harmful or offensive information, which
could negatively impact”
a company’s earnings and reputation, telecoms group Motorola said.
The
media and entertainment industry emerged as the most concerned, with
more than 90% of companies, including Netflix and Disney, seeing
fast-growing AI systems as a business risk this year.
The
impact of generative AI, a type of artificial intelligence capable of
generating text, images, and videos, is already reportedly being felt
across an array of industries, FT wrote. More than two-thirds of the
companies that discussed that specific type of AI identified it as a
risk, it notes.
The
companies that highlighted the potential benefits of AI spoke of cost
efficiencies, accelerating innovation, improved customer service, and
claims analysis.
As
many as 40% of companies globally use AI, according to Exploding
Topics, a platform that identifies early trends by analysing searches
and mentions on the internet. AI is most actively used in India
(about 59% of companies), according to the platform. In Russia,
roughly 32% of firms were already using AI to perform tasks as of
late 2023, according to the National AI Development Strategy.’
The
below is from the Socialist Standard January 2024
‘Built
into capitalism is competition between states and trading blocs for
markets, raw material sources, trade routes, and strategic points to
protect these. In fact capitalism is an economic system based on a
competitive struggle for profits.
Military
spending by states is an aspect of this competition as even in
diplomatic negotiations might is right, meaning that states have to
spend as much as they can afford on weapons of war. This waste of
resources on instruments of death and destruction and training people
how to use them is unavoidable under capitalism. When diplomacy
reaches an impasse, as it tends to when the stakes for a state are
high, this competition leads to wars, often proxy wars fought by
local puppets of the major powers.
This
competition also severely restricts what governments are able to do
about the current climate crisis. If a state does too much to combat
it while others don’t, it risks undermining its own competitiveness
vis-Ã -vis other capitalist states and trading blocs.
It’s
not just certain capitalist corporations such as fossil-fuel
companies that are, or cause, the problem; it’s the whole
capitalist system of production for profit. Governments can’t adopt
policies to bring about a sustainable economy because that would be
to go against the nature of capitalism as a system of unending
capital accumulation out of profits, as reflected by rising GDP. A
sustainable system of production will only be possible in a world
socialist system when there will no longer be the economic pressure
to make and accumulate profits as more and more capital.
No
effective and lasting measures will be able to be implemented until
the Earth’s natural and industrial resources have become the common
heritage of all humanity. Then we can tackle this problem in a
rational way without profit considerations or vested interests. All
working people throughout the world have a common interest in getting
rid of capitalism and nation-states and their frontiers. In a
frontierless post-capitalist society based on the common ownership
and democratic control of the world’s resources, ie, socialism
properly understood, we will all be ‘citizens of the world’. Then
there will be no waste of armaments or the threat — and reality —
of war.’
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2024/01/what-competition-for-profits-means-2024.html
The
below is from the Socialist Standard January 1987 i(Edited)
"If
competition is such a wonderful and desirable thing, why does
everybody try so hard to avoid it?". For example, when
solicitors lose their monopoly in house conveyancing, opticians lose
theirs in selling spectacles, or shopkeepers hear that a supermarket
is to be built nearby, do they say "Good! Just what we need: the
icy blast of competition"? They do not, instead they protest
bitterly and do everything they can to preserve the status quo.
Although
governments try to encourage competition within their own frontiers
they assist their own industries to avoid it in internationall trade
by loading the dice in their favour. The governments of the EEC
protect their own farmers from competition from abroad by erecting
tariff barriers and subsidising their production. These
subsidies produce such mountains of food that the EEC can sell it on
world markets at rock-bottom prices – butter sales to Russia are an
obvious case. The American government denounces these subsidies
because they keep inefficient EEC farmers in business whereas
American farming is extremely efficient and could easily undercut EEC
farming if only it were given the chance.
Does
this mean that the United States is all for free trade? Only in those
industries where it can win, such as farming. It is a different story
when it comes to steel and textiles so they protect those industries
with barriers against Imports. Most serious is the penetration by
Japan of American home markets in cars, electronics and consumer
goods. The United States’ trade deficit with Japan was over 50
billion dollars last year and members of Congress, business leaders
and trade unions are demanding legislation aimed at reducing Japan’s
exports to the United States.
Needless
to say the Japanese are not in favour of this but they want to have
it both ways - free trade for their exports but every obstacle placed
in the way of imports from other countries. For example, Scotch
whisky is subject to a level of taxation which makes it much more
expensive than home produced spirits. Why don't these other
countries simply keep out Japan's exports? They are afraid that
such a move would spark off worldwide tit-for-tat protectionism with
the resulting collapse in world trade. The cure would be worse than
the ailment and the Japanese government is taking advantage of this
fear.
Groups
of governments sometimes band together into a cartel or price-fixing
ring to avoid competition among themselves. For years the
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) shared out most
of the world oil market. Each member-nation was allocated an agreed
production quota of oil and no more. This year there has been a
drastic fall in oil prices caused by the world slump, resulting in a
sharp fall in demand, plus the entry of North Sea oil which is not
controlled by OPEC. This fall in price has meant less income for OPEC
members and some of them have been breading the agreement by
increasing production to try make good the lost revenue.
This
is what usually happens with governments or companies which organise
themselves into a cartel. They are all for cartel when trade is
booming and they can carve up the market but when trade is bad they
will break ranks and look after themselves. OPEC has just reached a
temporary agreement and the price of oil has started to rise again
but no one knows what will happen in 1987.
Nevertheless,
western governments do try to avoid monopolies within their own
countries. As the executive committee of the national capitalist
class a government must look after the interests of that class as a
whole and not just one section of it. If a monopoly was allowed in an
industry then the other capitalists will feel that they may be held
to ransom when they purchase from the monopoly. But surely the
soon-to-be privatised British Gas is a monopoly, the very thing the
government wants to avoid? There are two reasons for this
contradiction. The first is that the gas industry cannot really be
split up into several competing companies for practical reasons,
among them the cost of setting up alternative nationwide
installations. The second is the political factor which is that
the government sees wide share ownership as a vote catcher at the
next general election end the privatisation of British Gas gives it
the opportunity to achieve this aim.
This
episode has provided an example of the double standards used by
politicians. Tory MP Michael Forsyth, a free market zealot. argued
that privatised gas would not be a monopoly as it would have to
compete with electricity, oil and nuclear power. This is like arguing
that if some company owned the entire meat industry it wouldn't be a
monopoly because it would have to compete with fish and chicken.
Companies
sometimes need to grow if they are to survive. How could a company
meet its competitors if it merely stands still while they grow? This
need partly explains the recent merger-mania which saw huge companies
being taken over by others.
How
does this fact of life in capitalism square with the government's
obsession with promoting small businesses and its frequent use of the
Monopolies Commission to prevent the mega-mergers which are necessary
to enable British capitalism to compete internationally? The simple
truth is that many of those who are heavily into capitalism, like
some of the free marketeers, don‘t under- stand the basic laws of
the system, one of which is that while small may be beautiful in
business, big is infinitely more successful.
The
supporters of competition claim that it is of benefit to society
because it eliminates wastefulness. In fact it is the cause of
massive waste of humanity's time and energy.
And
just look at the hordes of companies eagerly competing to supply us
all with double glazing, fitted kitchens, and the like, with armies
of salespeople chasing after the same order and all of them selling
exactly the same product. This spectacle is repeated all over the
world as millions of useful human beings engage in this wasteful
duplication of effort. just how does this benefit society?
So
competition isn't what it's cracked up to be. Even the capitalists
and politicians only regard it as a necessary evil in the scramble
for profit and avoid it whenever they can. Certainly it has nothing
to offer the workers except the opportunity to become one another’
s enemies over their exploiters' quarrels and which have nothing to
do with them. Socialists work for a society in which the watchword
will be co-operation and where capitalism’s competition will seem
as strange and awful as we regard cannibalism today.’
Vic
Vanni
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1987/1980s/no-989-january-1987/competition/
