And policy and regulation keeps them in check
Technological change is any change in how things are made or done. It happens daily in small ways, often in organisations driven by profit. But occasionally, something major happens. Change accelerates due to a breakthrough, and innovation and vision converge to transform how we live and work.
Innovation is easy to define: it’s the creation of new ideas or methods. Vision, on the other hand, is more abstract. It’s the ability to imagine the future of society and plan for a better world.
That’s not ‘plan for a better world’ in a narrow sense. We’re not talking about a Trello board. Instead, it’s about crafting a vision for society that people want to believe in. Steve Jobs’s vision for the iPhone was about a new way of life – changing how we communicate, interact with the world, and consume entertainment. And we bought it.
It’s not ‘the future of society’ in a broad sense, either. In his book Power and Progress, Daron Acemoglu describes vision as how people think about turning knowledge into new technologies to target specific problems. In this way, vision shapes choices because it captures our aspirations. Aspirations for a world with sustainable energy, for example, drove the development of green technologies like solar and wind power.
general-purpose technologies
Technologies like steam power, electricity, and the internet fundamentally change things, igniting new visions for how we work and live and sparking further innovations down the line.
They are so big they are in a league of their own called general-purpose technologies (GPTs). General-purpose because they have wide applications across industries and sectors, but it takes people with vision to see those applications.
James Watt is one of those people. The Scottish inventor, born in 1736, envisioned a new source of energy that could power machines and improve people’s lives. He made an efficient and reliable steam engine to power factories, trains and ships. Thomas Edison is another. His vision was to improve people’s everyday lives. In 1879, Edison presented an early version of the lightbulb, announcing: “We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles.”
These inventions now seem the result of some natural and inevitable evolutionary process – but they are not. They are choices. Investors choose to turn the steam engine and lightbulb into reality.
Watt got help from Matthew Boulton, who had accepted a share of his steam engine patent as a debt settlement from John Roebuck, Watt’s initial business partner. Boulton, the son of a metal products manufacturer, subsequently headed to the English Parliament and successfully lobbied for a 17-year extension of the patent, enabling his firm to install the machines in mines and factories across Britain and abroad.
J.P. Morgan invested in Edison’s business, Edison Electric, but ultimately forced the inventor out to end the War of the Currents. Edison used a direct current (DC) power delivery system for his electrical devices, but customers could only use it if they lived within one mile of a DC plant. Nikola Tesla’s alternating current (AC) delivery system, on the other hand, could supply electricity over long distances using thin wires. So AC worked for customers and street lighting outside cities, too.
But AC can have high voltage, which is dangerous, according to Edison. He publicly and aggressively objected to Tesla’s AC for five years. The debate ended in 1892 when J.P. Morgan took control of Edison Electric and merged it with the largest AC firm. The new company, General Electric, took three-quarters of the US electrical market and made AC the default transmission technology.
Money was important but didn’t win the game. Power did. Without influence, Boulton would not have gotten an extension on Watt’s patent and the Industrial Revolution may have looked different. Without clout, J.P. Morgan would not have been able to force Edison -and DC- out of the electricity market.
power and profits
Power, and aspirations for profit rather than merit, elevated the steam engine and AC to the standard. Boulton stopped others from copying the steam engine to maximise his returns. And J.P. Morgan made more money using AC than DC because of its greater reach.
In a parallel universe, these powerful individuals may have chosen to invest in other inventions instead. Or different inventors may have found backing. The point is that technological change doesn’t just happen – it’s a path signposted by the rich and powerful chasing profits.
That’s not wrong, per se. But we need counterweights to avoid megalomaniacs making us serve them completely.
Installing steam engines in mines and factories led to longer hours, lower wages, and dangerous working conditions. But it also concentrated workers in factories, making it easier to organise in trade unions.
The Steam Engine Makers’ Society (SEM) was one of the first to emerge in 1824 when unions were still illegal. It defended worker policies and played a key role in legalising unions. It was a founding member of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) in 1851 – the largest and most influential trade union in 19th-century Britain. Ultimately, the SEM helped to shape the UK’s social and political landscape.
Technological change made that possible. But it also made it necessary. The antidote to megalomania, then, is policy and regulation. It’s like cancelling out too much chaos with too much order.
But, regulation to protect workers was slow and reactive to exploitation. It was the same for AC, taking decades and only in response to accidents and fatalities. That’s because regulation responds to society – not the other way around.
artificial intelligence
The latest GPT is AI. And many warn that’s dangerous, too. Technology alone is never dangerous – but the people who create and use it can be.
It’s still early days. We have the innovation, but vision is lacking – save for a few established voices making virtuous claims. Elon Musk wants to create safe and beneficial AI to help solve humanity’s most pressing problems. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, aspires to use AI to solve climate change and disease. And Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, aims to transform how we live and work.
But we’re not yet at the stage where those visions translate to inventions like the lightbulb and the steam engine. Perhaps the James Watt of AI is out there now, and we just don’t know their name yet.
While we watch the story of AI unfold, we can take lessons from history. I randomly selected steam power and electricity for this article, but the same stories can be found across GPTs. The pattern repeats.
To understand the trajectory of AI, keep your eyes peeled for powerful people chasing profits. Think now about the future you want to see and support organisations that advocate policies you believe in.
Regulation responds to society. If we pay attention, the lag doesn’t have to be decades. I believe we can manage the disruption from GPTs better with each cycle. But I am an optimist.
For more about new developments in tech and AI, click here.