5 ms·

This is just ignorant. You have to at least understand what it does, not some made up pop culture version. Bombs are easy to understand. Almost nobody (if anybo

This is just ignorant. You have to at least understand what it does, not some made up pop culture version. Bombs are easy to understand. Almost nobody (if anybody) has a clear handle on what "AI" does, as in what it's actual long run use or effect is. There are lots of dumb analogies (read "prediction machines" for a particularly shitty take) but nothing with any demonstrated predictive power. People who understand the technology at least can descriptively tell you what it does, which is a lot more useful than what laypeople think based on whatever populist media they've consumed.

coldtea 3y ago
What people who understand a technology at the technical level expect it to be used for and how, has historically not been very relevant to what the technology ends up being used for. What it does at a technical level (better described is "how it does what it does"), which is what the experts on AI are experts at, is not that important. What you need to know to have a chance to see its future impact is a very high level understanding of what it does on a non-technical level, and how better it could do it in the next 5-10 years. Which doesn't require a PhD on AI at all. Not even a BSc. See how many top computer scientists missed where the PC and the web revolution would end up and what it would allow. Even Gates missed the important of this internet thing. Where someone not that technical like Jobs could get it much better... https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/15/7396569/Steve-jobs-internet-interview https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/15/7396569/Steve-jobs-inter... https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-predictions-about-the-internet-steve-jobs-nailed-20-years-ago-2016-3#more-than-20-years-before-apple-introduced-the-iphone-jobs-essentially-predicted-that-these-agents-would-live-in-slates-we-carry-around-with-us-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-predictions-about-the-i...
voltaireodactyl 3y ago
In the long run, the most obvious effect will be an abdication of responsibility by the organizations that employ it. By superficially removing the humans from the decision making process, they also remove said humans from personal and professional liability. We can already see this with examples like Palantir.
- than3 3y ago
  This would also legitimize fraud, and other unfair business tactics which are currently illegal under the law but are not being enforced under the reasoning that if an algorithm does it its not what it is. So people can design algorithms to do it and claim it wasn't intentional (when it was), how can you prove a negative?. IMO, Anyone who approved the algorithm for such use constitutes approval of the practice, even when it wasn't known, they should have had constructive knowledge to know about it as part of their duty of care. Things like bait and switch will be called something else like 'dynamic pricing'. Oh wait that's already being done ... (see amazon). Then there's the societal mechanics, what 'good' happens from stalling the economic engine (i.e. eliminating the bottom 2/3 of the factor markets)? Also don't forget, violation of constitutional rights, under false positives, and the crazy maker algorithms that drive insanity (social credit like). The requirements to use AI are negligible compared to an atom bomb. Comparing it thus is a poor comparison because its so much worse.

coldtea 3y ago

What people who understand a technology at the technical level expect it to be used for and how, has historically not been very relevant to what the technology ends up being used for. What it does at a technical level (better described is "how it does what it does"), which is what the experts on AI are experts at, is not that important. What you need to know to have a chance to see its future impact is a very high level understanding of what it does on a non-technical level, and how better it could do it in the next 5-10 years. Which doesn't require a PhD on AI at all. Not even a BSc. See how many top computer scientists missed where the PC and the web revolution would end up and what it would allow. Even Gates missed the important of this internet thing. Where someone not that technical like Jobs could get it much better... https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/15/7396569/Steve-jobs-internet-interview https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/15/7396569/Steve-jobs-inter... https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-predictions-about-the-internet-steve-jobs-nailed-20-years-ago-2016-3#more-than-20-years-before-apple-introduced-the-iphone-jobs-essentially-predicted-that-these-agents-would-live-in-slates-we-carry-around-with-us-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-predictions-about-the-i...

voltaireodactyl 3y ago

In the long run, the most obvious effect will be an abdication of responsibility by the organizations that employ it. By superficially removing the humans from the decision making process, they also remove said humans from personal and professional liability. We can already see this with examples like Palantir.

than3 3y ago
This would also legitimize fraud, and other unfair business tactics which are currently illegal under the law but are not being enforced under the reasoning that if an algorithm does it its not what it is. So people can design algorithms to do it and claim it wasn't intentional (when it was), how can you prove a negative?. IMO, Anyone who approved the algorithm for such use constitutes approval of the practice, even when it wasn't known, they should have had constructive knowledge to know about it as part of their duty of care. Things like bait and switch will be called something else like 'dynamic pricing'. Oh wait that's already being done ... (see amazon). Then there's the societal mechanics, what 'good' happens from stalling the economic engine (i.e. eliminating the bottom 2/3 of the factor markets)? Also don't forget, violation of constitutional rights, under false positives, and the crazy maker algorithms that drive insanity (social credit like). The requirements to use AI are negligible compared to an atom bomb. Comparing it thus is a poor comparison because its so much worse.