Did artificial intelligence lose at the ballot box?

The midterm elections held in the US on November 3 resulted in a heavy defeat for President Donald Trump and the Republicans. The Democrats gained the majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thus, Trump faced the danger of becoming a lame duck president in the remaining two years of his term, to use a phrase frequently used in American politics. However, as you would appreciate, the results of the elections will not be limited to American domestic politics. The victory of the Democrats could also be a harbinger of significant developments regarding the future of artificial intelligence technologies, which have been placed at the center of the global economy and international competition in recent years, and reading this correctly is very important. A book chapter we prepared with Barış Doster on this subject, titled “From Digital Sovereignty to Speed Sovereignty: Media, Algorithmic Platform Power, and the Political Economy of Technological Time in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” will be published soon. 

The Trump administration's artificial intelligence policy was largely based on removing regulatory obstacles for American technology companies, accelerating investments, and maintaining technological superiority, especially against China. Democrats, on the other hand, generally advocate for stronger regulations against the economic, social, and environmental problems that these technologies may cause. Of course, there are different views within the Democratic Party as well. While some politicians want increased security audits and legal responsibilities for companies, others suggest temporarily slowing down or even stopping the development of advanced artificial intelligence systems. For example, politicians like Abdul El-Sayed, who was elected to the Senate from Michigan and was directly targeted by Trump in his election campaign, advocate for temporarily stopping advanced artificial intelligence development efforts. In contrast, figures like Lori Trahan and Zoe Lofgren focus on independent security audits, corporate responsibility, and regulations that protect innovation.

For this reason, it would not be wrong to say that the election results were not welcomed very positively in the technology world. Concerns regarding the future of artificial intelligence investments and especially data centers were also reflected in the stock prices of technology companies immediately after the elections. On the other hand, experts on cryptocurrency technologies think that Trump's approach has caused significant damage, especially due to the meme-coins he marketed. 

Moreover, reactions to artificial intelligence are no longer limited to discussions by academic circles or technology experts. In a study conducted by Reuters/Ipsos in October, 84 percent of American voters evaluated artificial intelligence as a threat to the future of employees. 80 percent of Democratic voters and 61 percent of Republican voters support stricter regulations on artificial intelligence. These figures show that concerns regarding the potential harms of technology are beginning to transcend political differences.

One of the remarkable results of the elections was the reaction to the massive data centers required for the operation of artificial intelligence systems. In many local governments, voters supported decisions that limit the establishment of new data centers on the grounds that they would increase electricity and water consumption, cause environmental problems, and raise energy costs. It seems that social concerns regarding artificial intelligence have reached a power that can influence election results when combined with issues that directly affect people's daily lives. I think this is a quite healthy process for the development of technology. It is very important that technological developments are not blunted due to social concerns, but rather guided in line with these concerns.

So, does all this mean that the development of artificial intelligence technologies will be stopped?

Before answering this question, it is necessary to evaluate the behavior of technology companies in recent years.

The elephant in the china shop

In my opinion, large companies developing artificial intelligence technologies act without sufficiently considering the delicate balances of social life. They act like an elephant that has entered a china shop. This analogy was made years ago by Mark Zuckerberg himself for Facebook. In every field they enter, they develop technologies that can radically change existing ways of doing business, professions, economic relations, and social institutions. However, it is difficult to say that they take on the same level of responsibility regarding the consequences of these changes on people.

The fact that a company can perform the work done by thousands of employees at a much lower cost thanks to an artificial intelligence system it has developed may be a great success for the company. But what is the situation for the employees who lost their jobs? Who will think about the future of people who face the possibility that the professional knowledge and skills they acquired through years of education will lose their economic value within a few years? Will the gains obtained from the increased productivity thanks to artificial intelligence remain only with company owners and investors?

We can ask similar questions for education, health, media, and public services. Who will bear the cost of misinformation, discriminatory decisions, or security problems produced by artificial intelligence systems? How will the inequalities that arise when those who profit from the development of these technologies and those who are affected by their negative consequences are different segments be resolved?

Technology companies must have answers to all these questions. Because having the scientific and economic power to develop a technology does not bring with it the right to use it without thinking about its social consequences.

However, one should not fall into another fallacy here.

Can technological development be stopped by bans?

When we look at human history, we see that technological development has not always progressed smoothly and uninterruptedly. New technologies have been banned, restricted, and met with social resistance from time to time. In his book The Information Age, Manuel Castells mentions the influence of the dynasties' "status quo protection" instinct in China, which invented gunpowder, the compass, large-tonnage ships, and the printing press, falling far behind in modernization later on. Some technologies were abandoned, some could not be used for many years. Despite this, humanity's effort to produce knowledge, develop new tools, and transform nature in line with its own needs has never completely ended.

Let us also remember the Luddite movement that emerged in England during the Industrial Revolution. Textile workers who thought that new machines threatened their jobs and livelihoods showed their reactions by destroying some machines. It would not be correct to evaluate this movement only as hostility to technology. What the workers opposed was not so much the existence of the machines, but the effects of the economic order in which these machines were used on working conditions and livelihoods. There are significant similarities between the concerns arising today due to artificial intelligence and the discussions of that period. Although they do not overlap exactly, we can say as a similar situation that in the Ottoman Empire, during the reign of Mahmud II, the innovations carried out especially in the military field were met with resistance from segments whose interests were harmed by the change of the existing order, and this resistance sometimes turned into violent conflicts.

So why can't technological development be stopped completely?

Because technology is not just tools developed by scientists in laboratories. People's needs, economic interests, competition between states, scientific curiosity, and the search for solutions to social problems constantly fuel technological development. It is possible for a technology banned in one country to continue to be developed in another. Another company can invest in research that one company has given up on. Moreover, scientific knowledge, once produced, often continues to exist even if the technological product that created it disappears.

This situation is even more evident in terms of artificial intelligence. Many countries, especially the US, China, and Europe, see artificial intelligence as an important element not only of economic growth but also of national security and international power struggle. In such an environment, it does not seem very realistic to think that all countries and companies will stop artificial intelligence work at the same time.

However, the fact that technological development cannot be completely stopped does not mean that every form and every use of it is inevitable. Humanity has succeeded in banning some technologies, strictly auditing some, and limiting the use of others to certain areas. Therefore, the continuation of technological development and how this development will be guided are different issues.

Who will determine the future of artificial intelligence?

The most important result of the US elections for artificial intelligence may be that it has begun to be stated more strongly that decisions regarding the future of these technologies cannot be left only to the managers and investors of technology companies.

With the Democrats winning the majority in Congress, it is expected that issues such as subjecting artificial intelligence systems to independent security tests, holding technology companies accountable for the damages they cause, and limiting the costs that data centers impose on society will come to the agenda more. Considering that Trump retains his veto power, it is difficult to say how much of these initiatives will become law. However, it is understood that we are entering a period where technology companies will not be able to act as comfortably as before.

Another issue that should not be overlooked here is the economic and political power possessed by companies that develop artificial intelligence technologies. The world's largest technology companies are not just developing new products. They also influence our access to information, our ways of working, our communication relationships, and increasingly our social decision-making processes. In my opinion, it is not possible to solve the problems that will be created by a power of this magnitude acting independently of democratic oversight and control mechanisms only with technological security measures.

On the other hand, those who advocate stopping the development of artificial intelligence should not ignore the benefits that this technology can provide to humanity. Completely rejecting a technology that offers significant opportunities in many fields, from health research to scientific discoveries, from education to production, may further aggravate some of the problems we are trying to solve.

What we need is not to choose between accelerating technological development under all circumstances and stopping it completely. It is to create an understanding where we can evaluate the speed, direction, areas of use, and social consequences of this development together.

Technology companies should stop acting like an elephant in a china shop. However, technology opponents should also understand that the only way to protect the shop is not to keep the elephant outside.

What will determine the future of artificial intelligence will not only be what engineers can achieve, but also what kind of future societies want to build with these achievements.