SILICON CHAINS: HOW AI DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES OUR NOTION OF FREEDOM

 SILICON CHAINS: HOW AI DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES OUR NOTION OF FREEDOM

Whatever the pros and cons of AI and Generative AI may be, there is no doubt that this technology, with its vast computational capability, is so useful in certain areas of life that we cannot resist the temptation to spend a significant amount of money, time, and energy on it. From personalized healthcare to predictive analytics in finance and education, AI’s utility is undeniable. However, its downsides are difficult to overlook. The enormity of the financial investment required for the growth of AI and AGI, the degree of climate collapse caused by the vast energy consumption of the technology, the ethical questions surrounding the use of resource materials that violate copyright provisions, the exploitative nature of the economic model necessary for its growth, and the pressure on time demanded for its use are critical concerns. These issues are not less important than those of safety and privacy, nor are they less significant than the tensions being created regarding public morality.

Energy Consumption and Sectoral Imbalances

One crucial aspect that needs further elaboration is how this technology’s growth is in disharmony with broader energy requirements and the shifting focus of energy consumption from other critical sectors. The development of AI and AGI demands vast computational resources, leading to enormous energy consumption. This shift in energy allocation has significant implications for other essential areas like healthcare, education, and sustainable development.

For instance, according to estimates from a recent study, training a single large language model like GPT-3 can emit as much carbon as five cars do in their entire lifetimes. Such figures underscore the energy-intensive nature of AI. This insatiable demand for energy strains global efforts to address climate change, especially as many countries still rely heavily on fossil fuels to power these technologies. This raises ethical questions about the sustainability of investing so heavily in AI while other areas that directly impact human well-being and planetary health suffer from underfunding and neglect.

Consider India, where massive investments in AI are being made, while renewable energy projects struggle with limited financial backing. Despite having ambitious goals to become a global leader in AI, the country faces significant challenges in sectors like public healthcare and primary education. If energy and financial resources are overwhelmingly allocated to AI development, critical areas like sustainable agriculture, public health, and education may fall behind. Renewable energy initiatives or healthcare infrastructure in developing nations may face challenges when governments and private sectors divert financial and energy resources toward advancing AI.

This imbalance is particularly evident in countries like Brazil, where public investment is crucial for sectors like education and healthcare. AI-driven innovation, despite its benefits, could exacerbate existing inequalities by diverting critical resources away from areas that need them the most. In a country still grappling with socio-economic inequalities, progress in critical human-centered areas might slow down, creating a wider divide between the wealthy, who benefit from AI technologies, and the marginalized, who are left behind.

Investor vs. Regulation Tension: Striking a Balance

The question then arises: how can investors, who are pouring enormous finances into AI technology, be satisfied when constrained by increasingly strict regulations? In the competitive and high-stakes world of AI development, investors are motivated by the promise of substantial financial returns. These returns often hinge on the ability to scale operations rapidly and exploit the full potential of AI technologies. However, with regulatory frameworks like those in the EU and the proposed SB-1047 in California, the landscape is shifting, with policymakers placing more stringent controls on the development, deployment, and ethical use of AI.

Investors who commit significant resources expect a favorable return on investment (ROI), which typically involves minimal operational restrictions and the freedom to innovate. Yet, these regulations—designed to ensure public safety, privacy, and ethical use of AI—introduce barriers that may limit the speed of development and profitability. They often impose requirements for transparency, data protection, and risk assessments, which can slow down AI ventures and increase costs. While these measures are essential for protecting society from potential harms, they inevitably create friction with investors seeking maximum returns.

In Europe, for instance, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has introduced strict controls over how personal data is collected, processed, and stored. AI systems, which rely heavily on data, are often slowed by the compliance measures required under these regulations. This is not just a European phenomenon. China, one of the leading countries in AI development, is also considering tighter regulations, particularly with regards to data security and ethical AI deployment. These regulations, while protecting public interest, pose a challenge for investors who thrive on innovation without constraints.

Without questioning the necessity or merit of these regulations, it is evident that a fundamental tension is emerging between policymakers and investors. Policymakers, aiming to prioritize public safety and mitigate risks associated with AI (such as bias, surveillance, and misuse of personal data), enforce regulations that curb the unchecked growth of AI technologies. On the other hand, investors, whose capital fuels the AI revolution, are concerned that these regulations will stifle innovation, reduce profit margins, and increase compliance costs.

This tension raises broader questions about the future of AI governance and economic incentives. Will there be a balance where regulations effectively safeguard public interests without discouraging investment in cutting-edge technologies? Or will investors, faced with diminishing returns due to regulatory constraints, shift their focus to less-regulated markets or technologies? In this evolving dynamic, both policymakers and investors will need to navigate a complex landscape, where the need for public safety and ethical oversight must coexist with the drive for technological advancement and profitability.

The Common People’s “Unfreedom”

In the midst of these arguments, the question arises: where do common people stand? It is an undeniable reality that the ultimate source of all finances and resources comes from four key agents—human resources, natural resources, technological and knowledge resources, and market resources. However, in the current context, it seems that these resources are being manipulated or controlled by the key players in the AI industry, namely technocrats and financiers. As a result, the vast majority of people—those who are the end users of this technology—are increasingly experiencing a loss of freedom.

Natural resources are being depleted without their consent, market forces are being hijacked by powerful technocrats and financiers, and the freedom for technology to evolve in a way that truly benefits humanity and nature is being seriously compromised. For example, rare earth minerals like cobalt and lithium, crucial for developing AI technologies, are often sourced through environmentally damaging and exploitative practices in regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where local populations have little to no say in how these resources are extracted.

This dynamic reveals a troubling disconnect between the AI-driven technological advancements and the needs of common people. Human resources, the backbone of any economy, are often relegated to passive consumers rather than active participants in shaping AI technologies. Instead of empowering individuals, AI is being developed and deployed in ways that benefit a small group of elites, leaving the larger population with limited influence over how these technologies impact their lives. The result is a sense of “unfreedom” for the vast majority, who are forced to adapt to technological systems that may not align with their values or best interests.

Furthermore, natural resources, which are foundational to both technological development and human survival, are being exploited without sufficient public oversight or consent. AI, with its high energy demands and reliance on mining for rare earth materials, accelerates environmental degradation. The common people, who depend on these resources for their livelihoods and well-being, have little say in how they are used or conserved. This depletion not only undermines environmental sustainability but also deepens social inequality, as those most affected by environmental harm are often the least equipped to influence decision-making.

The Role of Technology and Democratization

Market forces, too, have been largely captured by AI technocrats and financiers, reducing competition and stifling the diversity of technological innovation. In many cases, large corporations and AI giants dominate the market, pushing smaller players out and creating a monopoly-like structure. This concentration of power limits the ability of technology to evolve freely in ways that could serve broader human and environmental needs. Instead, technological development is driven by profit motives rather than ethical considerations or long-term sustainability.

The freedom of technology to develop in a way that benefits humanity and nature has been significantly compromised. AI’s potential to enhance human welfare, address environmental challenges, and create equitable societies is being overshadowed by the profit-driven goals of a few powerful actors. The common good is often sacrificed in favor of rapid technological advancement and financial returns, leaving ordinary people to bear the costs—whether in the form of lost jobs, environmental degradation, or a growing sense of disempowerment in the face of AI-driven systems.

In this context, the fundamental question becomes: How can we reclaim the freedom for technological development to serve the broader needs of society, rather than the narrow interests of a few? To do so, there must be a conscious effort to democratize access to the resources and decision-making processes that shape AI. This involves not only regulating the industry but also creating platforms for the common people to participate in discussions about the future of AI and its impact on their lives. A balance must be struck between innovation and the public good, ensuring that AI serves as a tool for empowering humanity and protecting the environment, rather than deepening inequality and environmental harm.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

To ensure that AI development does not perpetuate existing inequalities or infringe upon freedom, it is imperative to create a framework that allows for ethical innovation. Governments and policymakers must engage in meaningful dialogue with technocrats, financiers, and the public to create regulations that allow AI to flourish without compromising social, environmental, and moral values. Through democratizing access to technology and its resources, fostering transparency in AI governance, and emphasizing long-term human and planetary welfare over short-term profits, we can hope to build a future where technology truly serves humanity and preserves our freedom.

Rahul Ramya

29.08.204, Patna