Why must AI be weaponized? Why must AI companies pirate books for training? Can’t we all put it aside and focus our human technological strengths on, say, the environment? Or, my anti-progressive view here is to simply shut down all technology and regress as society all together back to our hunter-gatherer days (maybe Jared Diamond would agree with me here). While my satire my be unwelcome, the readings for this week really put a damper on “exciting new technologies,” which is usually the word choice in technological discourse. As Karp puts it if silicon valley elites are wary of revolutionary technologies, then we definitely should be (Karp 2023, NYT).
I was certainly struck by the doomsday graph comparing AI parameters and nuclear explosive yields. The parallels are quite spooky, but the AI space might not be close to generally intelligent. The fear is in the unknown, which is valid, but I have to walk myself off the doom ledge because I can’t shake the idea that what if none of this AI arms race follows through?
What is very real, however, are the global guidelines that need to be set and the real fear that AI can put people out of work as Keegan worries. I appreciate having a GAIO to keep the public in touch and mitigate among experts, but how on earth will different nations comply. Like we’ve discussed in class and seen throughout history, in order to shock the globe into recognizing we may kill off the human race with technology, something horrific may happen first. This event could be a “too powerful AI,” and, as one commenter states, will mean every member of the human species and life altogether on earth will dies (qtd. in Kerp 2023).
Keegan points to a war between the people creating and the people (unwillingly) training the AI. A legal war where copyright altogether can be thrown down the drain in the name of progress. We are all participating in this phenomenon, training AI models. Are we then training the military too?
Leave a Reply