As the world tries to play catchup to the current rapid developments in AI, there are those cheering it on, and those with serious concerns about where “AI” may take us. Or put another way, concerns of where we might take AI. The trite and perhaps safe response to rapid technological change can be expressed as “the technology is neutral; it’s what we do with it that makes it a plus or negative for civilization. Maybe so, maybe not.
The example often given is that of releasing the energy of nuclear fission; we made nuclear bombs, and we made nuclear power plants that don’t emit CO2. But it’s not as if the two are equivalent, as all it takes is a stray nuclear armed rocket that triggers a nuclear “exchange” to end the civilization that has all the nuclear power plants. Using that logic, AI may have all sorts of useful contributions to civilization as we know it, but some “flaw” buried in the code somewhere could still “get away from us”.
If we go by what early iconic desktop computer geniuses produced on their way to becoming mega-corps…we can trace ideals such as Google’s “Do No Evil” changing eventually to “whatever keeps the stock price high”. That probably should give us pause when yet another brilliant set of tech innovators arrives handing out the “AI can do anything” candy.
The needed regulation is almost certainly going to arrive after the horse has left the barn, and we’ll be subject to the aberrations of the technology brought about by the funding coming from banks and investors that are not out to make everybody wealthy.
Yet still, it seems our human fate to pursue the greater capabilities that AI can offer us. Luddites didn’t win last time either.
Below, one of the AI Doomers who should know what he’s talking about, is the story du jour. Probably for just a moment before he is drowned out by the next amazing advance in AI that is coming along sooner than soon.
What Really Made Geoffrey Hinton Into an AI Doomer | WIRED