AI models have been purposefully designed to do more, and do it faster and more often, and thereby ingratiate their decision making — both in response to our queries and, with evermore regularity, anticipate and guide our questions and subsequent actions — into every aspect of our work and personal lives. How could anyone test those consequences?
Two recent research papers on the near-future of AI development use 216 pages of often impenetrable blather to tell us something that could be summarized in two words: We’re screwed.
“We must develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas,” the President’s executive order said in mid-January, as it introduced biases of misjudgment, error, stereotyping, and the primacy of unfettered and unaccountable corporate profitability into the development of AI systems.
The idea that students or teachers can constructively outsource their study or work responsibilities to a thinking machine should be unthinkable. Just replace the label “AI” with “my really smart friend” and consider its applications.
Award-winning writer Jeanette Winterson thinks that an AI model can write good fiction and that we need more of it. She goes on to wax poetically about AI being an “other” intelligence and that, since human beings are trained on data, AI provides “alternative ways of seeing.” Ugh.
Every Federal employee walking out of an office with their belongings in a file box is a reminder of the blunt and brutal transformation that’s underway, and the fact that we’ve not been told nor participated in a conversation about what we’re going to get from it.
If robots can teach themselves to move as flexible and fluidly as living things (with the awareness to do so in any situation), then the floodgates will open up for putting them into everyday life.
Again, we know why government’s make bad decisions and we have the capacity to change them if we choose (we, as human beings, created them). We just haven’t done it, and electing an AI to do it for us seems doomed and probably cruel. Oh, wait a minute. We didn’t vote for AI to run things. Now it’s too late to say no.
DeepSeek threw the marketplace into a tizzy last week with its low-cost LLM that works better than ChatGPT and its other competitors. But the company’s ultimate goal is the same as that of Open AI and the rest: build a machine that thinks like a human being. The achievement is labelled AGI, for “Artificial General Intelligence.”
Even though AI will require profound, meaningful changes and trade-offs of personal agency, sense of self, how we relate to others, and what we perceive and believe, there’s no discussion about what it means and whether or not we want it.