The concept of limiting access to advanced intellectual property has been deeply rooted in our consciousness from the outset, influenced initially by fears of extraterrestrial beings, lost civilizations such as Atlantis, and superpowers from outer space. As our technological capabilities have expanded, this apprehension has transitioned from mythical entities to more tangible concerns, notably artificial intelligence (AI). This fear of a force potentially capable of usurping control has led to an inescapable drive to differentiate “us” from “the others.” The readings for this week collectively emphasis the necessity of exercising control over AI and distinguishing it from human intelligence, highlighting the growing significance of this debate.
The “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” articulates a vision for the ethical development and use of automated systems and AI to safeguard the American populace. A notable aspect of this document is its focus on individual data protection. As restrictions on AI become more pronounced, there is a paradoxical risk of the government reducing individuals to mere data points and numbers. In essence, humans are perceived as less complex in the face of AI, which, conversely, continues to evolve in complexity. This evolution began with content generation and has since expanded to include images and videos. It seems inevitable that a convergence of human and machine dimensions will occur, with AI capable of interpreting human behavior in a simplified manner. For instance, the AI Bill of Rights emphasizes the prohibition of data privacy breaches and discrimination based on race or gender. However, achieving unbiased outcomes necessitates unbiased data inputs and outputs, effectively simplifying individuals into numerical data. Consequently, AI can more easily differentiate among humans using simplified data, whereas distinguishing between AI and humans becomes increasingly challenging as AI assumes a more complex form relative to the simplification of human data representation.
This discussion leads to the second article, “The Strange History of Blade Runner IP,” which explores the enduring fascination with the Blade Runner intellectual property. The author reflects on the continuous profitability and relevance of the Blade Runner IP, despite the original film’s modest impact. The article suggests that recent adaptations of the Blade Runner IP have struggled to capture the depth of the original film and novel, and maintaining the original theme has proven challenging. However, the enduring popularity of the Blade Runner IP invites an examination of AI’s advancement. As AI develops, there is a recurring need to revisit the Blade Runner IP and revise the original narrative to reflect these advancements. Thus, the Blade Runner IP remains relevant, with modifications that may diverge from the original theme but resonate with contemporary developments in AI.
In conclusion, the need for control and differentiation is diminishing as we enter a new era, prompting us to reevaluate intellectual properties and their adaptations. These revisions, while potentially controversial, are indicative of our ongoing struggle to comprehend and integrate the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence into our societal and cultural frameworks.
Leave a Reply