I blogged a few weeks ago about the possible divide opening up between the generatively rich and the generatively poor i.e. between those with access to expensive generative AI tools (and the skills to use them) and those who are reliant on free alternatives. The lesson of social media should be that free access should be assumed to constitute a trial period and is unlikely to last, not to mention the obvious differential between the performance of GPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0 which I’m increasingly stunned by. There’s an obvious implication here for the ‘third digital divide‘ in Massimo Ragnedda’s sense of the ‘vicious circle’ between digital and social forms of stratification. The basic mechanism here is a straightforward one, as I summarised it a few years ago here:
If I understand correctly this conceives of access to and ability to autonomously use digital technology as a form of capital which can exercise an influences over stratification processes which are mot inherently digital. In this sense, it’s one factor amongst others which influences stratification, with the substantial caveat that it becomes ever more significant as social competition becomes ever more digitalised. This draws his attention to what he calls the ‘vicious circle’ between social and digital stratification (pg 5). The Internet can positively contribute to life chances but the capacity for it to do so reflects one’s original position, such that existing privilege and existing disadvantage tend to be reinforced by digital inequality. The crucial factor is the “different benefits and tangible outcomes of use” (pg 51) which follow from ICT use and their relation to pre-existing social inequalities. This is how he summarises the vicious circle on pg 48:
In the case of generative AI these systems offer personalised productivity gains which will manifest differently across fields. But the capacity of some people to now do routine tasks in a fraction of the time, while others undertake them in the familiar and established ways, opens up the possibility of profound differentials which will intersect with existing forms of stratifications. These differentials could be codified over time in new expectations inherent in roles, creating the risks of accumulating rewards for the generatively rich and penalties for the generative poor. Universities have a role in addressing this incipient divide by supporting the development of these capabilities during a degree but we’re likely to see divides opening up within the sector in terms of the capacity and willingness to address these issues. There’s a lot going on here and the risk is the ‘shock of the new’ and the understandable relation to take a critical orientation to these developments might get in the way of the sociological analysis they urgently require with a view to potential future outgrowths.
Mark Carrigan 