Leadership focus: The leadership challenge of Artificial Intelligence

“If anyone builds it, everyone dies.”

That’s the shocking title of a forthcoming book by tech futurist Eliezer Yudkowsky.

The book doesn’t come out until September, but he’s been speaking about the ideas for a few months now. He’s referring to the present scramble to create superhuman AI, a machine artificial intelligence that will be sufficiently smart to develop goals of its own. Goals that would put it in conflict with us. And if it came to a conflict, Yudkowsky prophesies that the machines would crush us. On the basis of well-researched evidence, he says, the conflict wouldn’t even be close.

Closer to home, the Jersey Institute of Directors (IoD) recently warned about some of the risks to child mental development, cyber security, online harms, theft of intellectual property and an absence of sound ethical reflection in the current rush to embrace AI in different fields of life, while acknowledging the apparent productivity gains that can be realised by doing the same things faster.

For balance, the futurist Dr Patrick Dixon, an occasional visiting speaker in Jersey wrote, in ‘How AI will change your life, a futurist’s guide to a super-smart world’, how AI might be imagined as a modern-day superhero. From diagnosing diseases faster and more accurately than doctors (and with less pay!), to making education more personalised and streamlined. Even to taking the randomness out of dating to find your soulmate.

The breadth of views on a subject like AI makes it vital that we look at it from a leadership perspective. How this generation deals with the adoption of this technology will determine how our businesses, schools, hospitals and civil institutions will function for the next century.

The truth is, the way we engage with AI is already impacting the way our families and workplaces function whether we are conscious of it or not, and surely the first function of leadership is to bring critical consciousness to the way things are presently done, so that purposeful choices can be made.

So what are the options for leaders, facing the maelstrom of voices advocating for different approaches to AI?

Early adoption and rapid innovative change is seen as one way to ‘get ahead of the curve’.

The idea is that if you ‘move fast and break things’ you’ll avoid being stuck with an outdated approach when the technological tsunami has subsided and rearranged all the familiar ways of doing things. This approach has apparent merits if you are in the world of fast-moving consumer goods, where you can flood the market with variants and let the data show you which ones are most popular. This Darwinian approach to change is great where the risks of failure are small.

So your new flavour of Blackberry and Kiwi energy drink doesn’t sell? Never mind, withdraw the line and try the Kumquat and Melon flavour.

But rapid innovation by trial and error is the worst way to innovate in fields where the price of failure is unacceptable. Fields like medical innovation and child development are obvious candidates, but if you ask people about areas such as wealth management, criminal justice and public security you’ll probably also hear people calling for a more measured risk-based appraisal of new methodologies.

What about the idea of resisting the technological wave? People often use the term Luddite to refer to someone who has a dim-witted naivety about new technologies, or a phobia of the latest devices and gadgets. The truth is the original Luddites were far from this caricature.

The early nineteenth century was a similar time of technology-driven innovation which had a dramatic impact on social relations. Automation brought massive increases in financial return on capital to those who owned the textile mills. Automated labour could generate vastly more finished product than the traditional craft skills that the machinery displaced. Furthermore, the simplicity of machine operation, when compared to the decades long apprenticeships in learning craft skills led to a rapid downward pressure on wages. Accompanied by the widespread unemployment which followed the cessation of hostilities in the Napoleonic wars, and the widespread dispossession of livings with the enclosure of productive, accessible land, this created a social and economic crisis.

Working people therefore found themselves facing a financial crisis, a cost-of-living crisis, a social crisis and a crisis of meaning at work – where satisfying work became replaced by brutalised labour in noisy, dangerous factories. What was their response to this?

Well as workers throughout history have done, they took industrial action. Largely in the form of acts of sabotage to the very machines that were dehumanising their experience of work. They wrote pamphlets and organised events. Many of the pamphlets and posters attributed the damage to a fictitious figure – General or King Ned Ludd, possibly named after an apprentice from a generation earlier who damaged his boss’s knitting machine.

The Luddite movement flourished between 1811 and 1816, around the same time as other reform movements such as what became known as the Peterloo Massacre. In the early ears of the movement protestors were shot by the forces of mill and factory owners, later leading to changes in the law which made industrial sabotage a capital felony. With the execution of their leaders and the transportation of dozens more, following show trials around the country, the Luddite movement was quelled. But their legacy entered history.

So a Luddite isn’t some dim-witted technophobe who doesn’t understand new technology. Luddism was a socially revolutionary movement for better work, in better conditions, for better pay. According to Malcom Thomas: “These attacks on machines did not imply any necessary hostility to machinery as such; machinery was just a conveniently exposed target against which an attack could be made.”

So direct activism for a better world is one alternative to the frenzied adoption of the new technology at any cost. But perhaps leaders in Jersey need to reflect and learn from both of these extremes and find a third way.

From the activists we can learn to critically analyse the deeper ‘why?’ behind any new technology. Who is investing in its development? Who will extract all the benefits of the increased productivity? What are the undisclosed impacts on our social, health, family and mental lives? It is only with this clarity that leaders can then paint a picture of the future and lead their organisations into a better world.

From the early adopters we can also learn. We can learn the fun and energy that can come from playing with new ideas. We can think seriously about the risks and then run measured experiments with new products and methods, having ruled out those which are too dangerous to health, wealth or reputation.

The one option that is not open to leaders is passivity.

In an automated, interconnected world, to do nothing is to be a part of the project of the tech billionaires. If you create a profile on their social media platform you are giving them your valuable data for free, for them to monetise to their real customers. If you let your children browse or scroll on YouTube, Insta or TikTok, you are exposing them to the curated feed that will very quickly target them with content filled with violence, sexualised content or symbols of greed and shame. If you simply marvel at the speed at which apps like Copilot or ChatGPT spew out plausible looking text, you are surrendering some of the personal authenticity that makes written communication an expression of our humanity as well as any instrumental function.

Eliezer Yudkowsky said: “If anyone builds it, everyone dies.” Well, we’ve already built it. And we are already dying, just a little bit at a time, from the dehumanisation of our life and work through the uncritical adoption of technology.

The moment for leaders to show the way is now.

Leadership is about making work more human. Leadership is about helping everyone to live their best lives.

Great leaders create businesses where people do good work for people and they are well rewarded for it. In an age of Artificial Intelligence we don’t need Artificial Leaders. This is a moment for authentic leaders, who know the difference between the artificial or fake and the authentic.

Leadership is human, and the world needs it more now than perhaps ever before.

Simon Nash is an experienced leader, speaker, and writer with over 30 years dedicated to examining the intersection of people and ethics in the workplace. Renowned for his innovative and disruptive perspectives on the dynamics of people and work, Simon has garnered numerous accolades throughout his career. His approach blends deep ethical considerations with practical strategies, enabling businesses to address growth challenges effectively and sustainably.

One way Simon fosters leadership growth is through board offsites, as they provide leaders with the opportunity to step away from the daily tasks and engage in open dialogue. This environment promotes the exchange of ideas, enhances coaching relationships, and underscores the organisation’s commitment to developing its leaders.

Law At Work plays an essential role in providing expert guidance to businesses, particularly in areas such as leadership development, coaching and mentoring, and organisational culture. With a focus on clear, commercial advice, Law At Work’s multidisciplinary team has extensive experience in all areas of people, safety, data, and leadership development, enabling businesses to propel forward.