Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials HomeFP CommentWilliam Watson: Hubris meets humbug with government AI 'strategy'We need neutral policies that assume nothing in detail about how the future will look. Because the human condition is that we don't knowLast updated 1 hour ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair speaks during the 'Future Of Britain' conference at Park Plaza Westminster Bridge Hotel on July 09, 2024 in London, England. Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesIn his recent essay on the troubles of the British Labour government, former prime minister Tony Blair says the problem isn’t personality or communications but the fact the government doesn’t have “a worked-out coherent plan for a country in a fast-changing world” (see below). What’s required is “long-term strategic thinking which is alien to the way most modern democracies function.” Not that old-time democracies did strategy any better. Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an Accountor“A worked-out, coherent plan” for dealing with a completely new and likely transformative technology. Well, good luck with that. Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againLet’s try a thought-experiment. Call it “2001: A Time Odyssey.” Think back a quarter century. If you were around then and had a mobile phone, it was a dumb one. It may have been a Nokia or Motorola and it may have had a tiny monochrome screen that told you who was calling. One Nokia model introduced that year offered FM radio. Cutting-edge! The Ericsson T39 came with Bluetooth technology, an innovation most of us hadn’t heard of. (What do you mean “blue tooth”? What could make a tooth blue? Do teeth feel the cold?)In 2001, Steve Jobs was four years back at Apple, a company that almost went under without him. Its big product was the iPod, a music player that boasted 1,000-song capacity. The iPhone was still six years in the future, the iPad nine. OK. Hands up everybody who in 2001 understood that in 2026 we would all be spending hours a day on our phones, dating, gambling, texting, sexting, watching TV and movies, taking HD photos, making our own HD movies (how many of us knew what HD was in 2001?), posting our own lives on the internet, following other people’s lives, net surfing — heads down, doom scrolling, often for hours at a time, to the point we’re now thinking of banning smart phones for kids. (What, you mean kids have their own phones?) This of course assumes kids don’t know tech better than their parents, which is not the case in any family I’m familiar with. If you’re honest, and aren’t suffering tech-nesia — the tendency to forget how things once were as soon as they’re not that way any more — you’ll admit you had no idea all this was coming. Not a glimmer. Yes, in retrospect it may be possible to find 2001 futurology that pretty much hit things on the nose. But of all the forecasts made in 2001 — and people do persist in trying to predict the future, a power not given to our species — what percentage got it anywhere near right? And on what basis would a well-meaning minister or government have gone all-in on that particular sliver of predictors? In fairness to Tony Blair, he understands the scale of the change we seem to be facing (“seem to” because, who knows?, maybe it will fizzle). “Think of how Britain was in 1826,” he writes, “and how different it was in 1926. And then in 2026. This is the scale of change but in dramatically faster time.”So how do you possibly plan for the unknown convulsions society is about to go through? “I say, this steam engine thing-y is going to cause rather a social revolution, ain’t it?, what with the new iron horses and these dark satanic factories sprouting up all across our green and pleasant land. Perhaps one should introduce a full-fledged — what might one call it? — ’welfare state’ in case the changes become too disruptive. What say you, prime minister?” Thomas Malthus and Karl Marx thought they had discovered the scientific laws of social evolution. Their predictions turned out spectacularly wrong. And yet we’re told — repeatedly, since there have been delays, which are always understandable when attempting the impossible — that the government will be introducing an AI “strategy” any day. My recommendation is to wait longer. About 40 years, say, until it becomes clear what effect AI has had.I’m not entirely serious, of course. The way democracy is practiced these days, governments don’t have the luxury of waiting. We all demand action of them every day. (Well, not this page, which generally demands inaction, but most of us.)What we need are policies that are more reactive, less pro-active. We need to get away from the idea that if only we think hard enough about it, put enough social scientists to work studying it, and strike enough committees and task forces to report on it, the sexier ones making use of AI itself, that we’ll figure out how it’s all going to work itself out. That’s hubristic humbug. Events are in the saddle, riding all of us. As always.Our strategy for AI should be the same as our strategy for everything else. Presume nothing about what’s going to happen. Let people get on with it. Keep taxes low and regulation light. Preserve and protect property rights. Don’t punish success. And deal with excesses as they arise, which they certainly will.A useful first step, even if we’re in politics, is to admit the deep vastness of our ignorance about the future. No shame in that. It’s simply “dealing with the world as it is,” to coin a phrase.From former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair’s recent essay: “The Labour Party is playing with fire over its future and the future of the country.” The world is turning on its axis and today’s politicians living in a 24/7 pressure cooker have barely time to recognize the turning let alone study it. These changes need long-term strategic thinking which is alien to the way most modern democracies function.The government’s principal problem isn’t (Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s) personality. Or a failure to communicate “our achievements.” Or a need to assert more strongly Labour’s “values.”It is because we don’t have a worked-out, coherent plan for the country in a fast-changing world and are in the wrong political position from which we can devise one and win a second term …(A technology revolution is underway) led by developments in artificial intelligence, which 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 revolutionize the private sector and should in time revolutionize public services and government. Yet people in most countries, including Britain, have no idea what is about to hit them …Think of how Britain was in 1826 and how different it was in 1926. And then in 2026. This is the scale of change but in dramatically faster time …The private sector will go through a process of adaptation to this new AI world and, therefore, business and entrepreneurs need to know government is on their side, removing obstacles to business growth — not creating them as they go through this massive process of adjustment. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.