Artificial Intelligence. It’s not new and has been proven on many occasions to deliver successful outcomes, yet it remains the subject of deep public mistrust, with only 17% of manufacturing organisations in the UK currently taking advantage of the benefits that it can offer [1].
Alan Turing’s invention of 1950 is widely credited as being the first example of artificial intelligence, with his definition being that the computer could be said to possess intelligence if it were able to mimic a human response when subjected to specific conditions. Much has evolved since then, but the basic function of AI is much the same.
Nowadays, we welcome smart speakers into our homes. They play our favourite music, record our shopping lists and set alarms for us. They are widely accepted on the basis that they cannot cause us harm. They augment our daily lives, reducing our personal admin burden and providing entertainment.
We accept the use of robotics in manufacturing. Robots are able to perform repetitive tasks with the same level of accuracy time after time, without requiring breaks or suffering from fatigue. They limit the need for humans to be in an unsafe environment and can improve productivity.
So where do we draw the line? Self-driving vehicles are a contentious issue. On the one hand, they could ease congestion on our roads, but without human ethics, how can they predict the actions of third parties and determine a pragmatic outcome? The pedestrian who was involved in a collision with an Uber self-driving car [2] when the backup operator was distracted is proof of this. Without the ability of the vehicle to predict the potential outcome and take precautionary measures, human death resulted.
With businesses in every industry being hard hit by the financial crisis, compounded by a lack of suitably skilled employees to fill the record number of vacancies in the technical sector, embracing technological advances is seen as a logical step to remaining operational.
Added to this, governments are always looking for ways to improve productivity and reduce expenditure. However, with up to half of the UK population stating that they don’t trust the government [3] there is a significant amount of legwork required if the public is to be convinced of the benefits of AI in government.
Implementing AI technology offers many benefits for both private and public sector businesses. It can streamline time-consuming processes, freeing up human operators to conduct more valuable tasks. It can predict outcomes and direct workstreams towards those that offer the greatest opportunity for generating profit or public good. It can identify issues in the benefits system to enable beneficiaries to achieve the outcomes that they deserve. It can even create exciting new jobs. But only when the organisation implementing the technology has the credibility to back it up.
If the public does not have faith in the organisation that plans to deploy the technology, they will not give credence to the technology. When this happens, a range of outcomes are possible. At best, the public can begin to withdraw their consent to the use of their data for analytical purposes, skewing the outcomes of public consultations and unintentionally creating bias in government proposals. At worst, sufficient public defiance could destabilise the government.
If the intention is to promote the use of Artificial Intelligence within government departments, there will be a hard uphill slog to gain public acceptance. This will only be overcome by honest and transparent dialogue. There must be an open discussion with all of those who could be impacted by the adoption of new technologies, clearly stating what information they will be gathering, for what purposes, how its integrity will be maintained and gaining their explicit consent to its use for those specific purposes.
Government departments will need to implement a full suite of testing to ensure that the technology is working appropriately and delivering the intended results. They must be prepared to change strategy should it prove ineffective. There is no guarantee that any level of communication will change public perception, but the earlier a communications campaign begins, the greater its chances of success.
