Opinion | Pros and cons to new tech: Stupidity, productivity and whales (2024)

Sadly, offenses and crimes against women are often literally without consequence, with perpetrators going scot-free. Perhaps if we all stop trivializing injustices against women, this will change.

Colleen Peck, Snoqualmie, Wash.

Mr. Pardue contends that the main cause of strong productivity growth last year was not artificial intelligence but rather a surge in new business creation.

To be sure, U.S. labor productivity growth rebounded in 2023 to 2.7 percent, nearly double the rate of the prior eight years. That is a great thing because productivity is the key to wage growth. But to suggest business start-ups caused this rebound is to confuse correlation with causation. In fact, scholarly evidence shows that large firms are more productive than small ones. Moreover, new start-ups are even less productive than small firms, so there is no way that start-ups are responsible for the overall increase in productivity.

Start-ups also do not promote significant amounts of innovation and competition. The lion’s share of start-ups are run by people who are tired of working for others or who have difficulty finding other work. Nearly 85 percent of small businesses don’t acquire a patent, trademark or copyright in their first four years, according to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research. It states that most of them have “little desire to grow big or to innovate in any observable way.” This is partly why firms aged zero to 25 years all have about the same levels of job creation. As a result, most start-ups do not encourage competition, because they do not pose an innovative threat to large corporations.

The reality: What has driven productivity throughout American history is the emergence of new “general purpose technologies” — steel, internal combustion engines, electricity, semiconductors, and now, hopefully, AI and the systems it powers. That is what the source of future productivity growth is likely to be, not a bunch of mom-and-pop start-ups.

Given the evidence, new business creation is likely a minor contributor to productivity. It is more reasonable to conclude that a greater series of economic factors drove this productivity growth, including large firms. As such, neither large nor small firms should be demonized.

Robert D. Atkinson, Washington

The writer is the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

I agree with Ms. McArdle’s prediction that artificial intelligence will continue to grow and take more jobs, but I believe there is a limit to what jobs are at risk.

My class has been studying the philosophy of Thomas Nagel and his protests against human arrogance. He believes the human mind has restrictions, such as how the body is limited in its capacities. I believe a similar arrogance is happening in the tech world, in which AI is viewed as an overwhelming force that can do everything. Instead, it is quite limited.

Take a look at ChatGPT. It is very good at sifting through information and picking keywords, but it is unable to act autonomously. Despite its amazing capabilities to gather and organize data, current AI technology is limited to acting on tailored problems with specific results and cannot act effectively outside of this box. This means that human labor is still more reliable for many jobs, considering the sheer number of things that can go wrong and the inability for computer algorithms to immediately adapt. I am not sure this will always be an issue for AI, but it seems that, for the time being, most people can rest assured that their jobs will not be taken over by a bot.

Matthew Malefyt, Brooklyn

The writer is a student at Fordham University.

The May 11 Climate Lab analysis, “Bishop vanished. His species can still be saved.” omits the critical role technology can play in protecting the endangered North Atlantic right whale population. Boaters are lovers of marine life who want to see our saltwater and freshwater life flourish. We also want to ensure boaters remain safe on the water, and we want local businesses that depend on boating to continue to thrive. That is why the recreational boating and fishing industries have invested so heavily in technological advancements that protect marine life, boater safety and coastal economies.

Through combining multiple advanced technologies that exist today — such as infrared imagery detection, 3D sonar mapping and innovative marine radar algorithms — mariners could detect whales more accurately, monitor their activities, model potential risks and take proactive measures to help prevent strikes.

Large oceangoing ships, not recreational boats, cause most whale strikes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not consult the recreational boating industry and the technologies available when writing its rule restricting boats to 10 knots. Our industry strongly advocates for the White House to withdraw the vessel-speed rule. While the recreational boating industry is being unfairly swept up in this new rule, we stand ready to be a part of the solution. By using technology, our government can instead be on the cutting edge of solving our top conservation issues while not threatening the U.S. small businesses that make up the $230 billion recreational boating industry our coastal economies depend on.

Callie Hoyt, Washington

The writer is the vice president of government relations for the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

The southeastern Montana community raising alarms about ExxonMobil’s proposal to use federal public lands in their backyard as a carbon pollution dumping ground is spot on.

My organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, has been reviewing the environmental documents for this project, which proposes up to 15 carbon waste injection wells and 40 miles of pipeline. Using publicly available data, I calculated that over the project’s twenty-year lifetime, it could emit up to 33,900 tons of greenhouse gases — the same as burning 33.7 million pounds of coal.

Locals in Montana and elsewhere, from California to Louisiana, are rightly concerned about this technology, which can lead to life-threatening ruptures and leaks.

This scheme seeks to pay fossil fuel companies top dollar while the government claims credit for a supposed climate solution. Instead, this plan is actually an expensive, dangerous, taxpayer-subsidized distraction from real climate action. Communities and the climate must not be sacrificed to keep dirty industries alive. We need a just transition to truly renewable energy.

Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, Oakland, Calif.

The writer is an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity’s climate law program.

The article asserts that the federal government and big oil companies are forcing dangerous carbon-capture technology on unwilling Montana landowners. It and my experience as executive director of the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources are worlds apart.

Wyoming has long focused on advancing carbon capture. The state is home to the largest carbon capture, use and storage facility in the United States; that carbon is permanently stored through a process known as enhanced oil recovery, producing some of the lowest carbon-footprint oil and gas available. With support from the Energy Department, the state and industry partners, we are also advancing permanent carbon storage sites.

In 2019, 35.4 percent of Wyoming’s residents supported carbon capture, while 55.8 percent were neutral or unsure. By 2022, 47 percent were in support, and only 43 percent were neutral or unsure. When Wyoming’s energy communities were surveyed on emerging technologies, carbon capture was the most popular at nearly 74 percent support, followed by solar (64 percent), nuclear (60 percent), wind (51 percent) and hydrogen (48 percent). In short, we do not see the landowner opposition alluded to in the article.

Perhaps Wyoming’s acceptance comes from decades of exposure to the concept. Or perhaps Wyomingites have confidence in the publicly available geologic and scientific data. Perhaps it is energy-savvy Wyoming landowners, many of whom have firsthand experience with oil and gas and understand how they can benefit from development on their land. From my perspective, I believe Wyoming’s greatest energy resource might just be its open-minded attitude.

Responsible energy development — in collaboration, not confrontation, with our energy communities — is what the Equality State does best.

Holly Krutka, Laramie, Wyo.