“…it’s blowing my mind in its implications… Companies and countries will rise or fall on the back of it. ” Blair said.
Damien McElroy is London bureau chief at The National
“… the former British leader’s far-reaching summary: “Developments in artificial intelligence … will change everything. I mean everything. There is no point in debating whether this technological revolution is a good or bad thing. Just know it is a ‘thing’. In fact, it is ‘the thing’. It will displace jobs, though creating new ones, but no one yet knows the full consequence. Companies and countries will rise or fall on the back of it. It will revolutionise the private sector and should in time revolutionise public services and government.”
The responses to the two men’s contributions to public attitudes have been variously to pick holes in what is judged most important in shaping the future or to find a hidden hand. Some of this finger-pointing has been specifically directed at the technology giants…
“The reason I think we’re living through a 21st-century technological revolution led by AI is not because my institute has been bought off by tech bros, but because I am studying what is happening and it’s blowing my mind in its implications,” he said.
Mr Blair’s work set off a flurry of responses in the UK where some ambitious political figures provided 1,000-word counterpoints. This then saw Mr Blair issue a lengthy follow-up piece in a weekend newspaper.
As for Pope Leo’s intervention, the papal encyclical has a long tradition of providing commentary on important subject matters. This gives the current pontiff a chance to refer to the works of his predecessors throughout the papal document. He steadily builds his arguments throughout his inquisition into AI and its impact by pointing to the legacy and workings of the documents from the Vatican that have gone before.
This makes Pope Leo’s work both an internal debate and a contribution to the world. He is explicit about this in the encyclical, in which he talks about the workings of the state and the church as separate considerations…”
