The US military alone has more than 800 active AI-related projects and has requested almost US$2 billion in funding for AI in the 2024 budget.
“Any companies providing technologies to militaries that could be violating human rights or the laws of war run the risk of criminal indictments, sanctions, civil suits and considerable reputational damage,” said Audrey Mocle, Deputy Director of non-profit Open MIC.“The risks for investors in these tech firms increase as they become more enmeshed with the [weapons] sector.”
Investors, particularly those with stakes in the big tech hyperscalers and limited partnerships in venture funds exposed to generative AI, should be critical of overselling the benefits of this new technology — financial or otherwise. Efforts should be made to encourage the deployment of this technology toward more productive ends. Any actual benefits should be weighed against the very real costs for which tech companies should be held accountable.
US-based tech firms’ close ties with the Trump administration are unlikely to discourage continued pushback and engagement from ESG-focused investors in the longer term.
“Aligning with political leaders may seem expedient in the short-term, but tech company heads may regret going all in if these leaders’ popularity declines or their policies are seen to be capricious and harmful to people and markets,” - Jessica Dheere, Open MIC Advocacy Director
“While Trump will undoubtedly have an impact short-term, we think ESG principles will ultimately prevail because they represent a smart way of doing business.” - Michael Connor, Open MIC Executive Director
With AI-related risks being inherently global in nature, the hope and anticipation is that there will be a suitably robust regulatory environment wherever the technology is deployed, Michael Connor, Executive Director at Open MIC, tells ESG Investor.
“Many companies have global activities, so we need to ensure that if they are applying a higher standard in Europe due to EU regulations, this should be the case wherever they operate to foster greater corporate accountability in the deployment and use of digital technologies,” he says.
Investors, particularly those with stakes in the big tech hyperscalers and limited partnerships in venture funds exposed to generative AI, should be critical of overselling the benefits of this new technology — financial or otherwise. Efforts should be made to encourage the deployment of this technology toward more productive ends. Any actual benefits should be weighed against the very real costs for which tech companies should be held accountable.
Michael Connor of Open MIC: “…we've embarked over the years on a whole range of issues ranging from the need for federal privacy laws writ large to artificial intelligence, facial recognition, all sorts of issues. And more recently working with both Arjuna and with my colleague Jessica at Open MIC on questions of artificial intelligence and what that means for misinformation and disinformation and as well dealing with Ekō and Christina as well. So the three organizations have been involved in a big effort lately about artificial intelligence.”
Without that trust, no system or institution that relies on the accurate communication and assimilation of fact—not democracy, not financial markets, not health or the environment, not small business, not policy advocacy, not human rights—will survive as we know it.
Before we reach the tipping point, which I and many of my colleague’s think may well be next year’s elections, it would behoove us to remember that other axiom about moving fast: Speed kills.
