I really admire Gary Stevenson and his YouTube channel Gary's Economics. I find it incredible that an ex–City trader has become such an influential voice in the UK political ecosystem in little more than a year, largely through the effectiveness of his videos. His latest video is excellent and, in my view, one of the most convincing analyses of the broad societal impacts AI is likely to have.
Although Gary studied economics at some of the best schools in the country, he has observed first-hand, through his work as a trader, that many mainstream economic models struggle to explain real market behaviour. Instead, what he finds most revealing is how these economic narratives are used to justify government policies and maintain the status quo — more than what they claim as a "science" of economics.
In this latest episode, he takes on the common belief that technological progress is always — or at least in the long run — beneficial to humanity. He argues that this assumption rests on a naïve and anachronistic reading of the Industrial Revolution. While it is true that the surge in production capacity since that period has dramatically raised living standards globally, the elephant in the room is that it took nearly 200 years of hardship for most people to benefit.
Industrial workers, including children, often worked 12-hour days, six days a week, in harsh conditions. At the same time, large numbers of skilled workers — such as artisans in places like India — lost their livelihoods as they were unable to compete with mass-produced British goods, which they were often forced to consume. The list goes on. Generations had to struggle — and in many cases fight — for the gains of increased production to be shared more broadly.
Gary's point is simple but important: technological progress does not automatically translate into better lives for the majority, even over time. If we do not fix what is already broken, AI risks accelerating and amplifying existing inequalities. There is also the possibility of more extreme outcomes, including forms of mass surveillance or automated violence. Preventing that is a matter of choice.
I consider myself an AI optimist. I believe AI has the potential to enable humanity to achieve extraordinary things, at scales far beyond what we can do today. However, it is clear that those of us involved in building and deploying these systems have a responsibility to engage with these questions — and to push companies and governments to make choices that ensure AI, and the infrastructure behind it, improves the lives of the many—not just the few.