 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 6, 2023 - 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
WillemAfo
(Member)
|
If there is something one can do with a tool in one hour that would require 10 hours without that tool, it's obviously better to use that tool. No one is going by stagecoach cross country any more, because there are trains and cars and planes. So yes, we lost all the stagecoach jobs, but we got train and car and plane jobs.
I think it is absolutely silly to bemoan the advance of technology. (I know, it's human... anyone remember the weaver uprising 1844? No? Strange, no one seems to want to do all this by hand anymore.)
Again though, all of this misses the point I already made.
Your lens is at best an early-2000s conception of technology when "task automation" made things easier - that's not what AI is.
You're also conflating AI technology with ALL technology. A stagecoach is a tool, a car is an upgrade to that tool, a plane is an upgrade/spinoff to that tool. A wedding photographer having a camera that can shoot in low-light instead of using a light meter is just using an improved tool.
AI is a broad replacement mechanism whose very purpose is to mimic and thus replace the human being. It's literally in the acronym.
It's a tired ad hominem to claim that critics of AI are "bemoaning the advance of technology" as that's not even close to reality. When nuclear fission was discovered and atomic bombs were created, the world didn't say "stop bemoaning the advance of technology! give every average citizen public access to nuclear bombs!"
The use of nuclear weapons was limited to governments, followed by global governing bodies who rapidly stepped in to establish rules and regulations for not only the use of nuclear weapons but nuclear energy overall.
AI should be the same way, but it's not because many versions of it are widely available to the general public. No rational person would disregard the benefits in utilizing AI/machine-learning for heavily-regulated sectors like Health, Aerospace and broadly "Science". In those heavily-regulated sectors, there are indeed vastly complex problems whose solutions could be life-saving and AI could (and is currently being explored) to speed up research/analysis processes to assist in the discovery of those solutions.
An AI writing a screenplay, composing music, generating "art" is not saving lives nor benefiting humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AI is a broad replacement mechanism whose very purpose is to mimic and thus replace the human being. It's literally in the acronym.
Not so. Human beings are more than mere "intelligence". No matter how you apply it, A.I. is still "ruled" and governed by people. It's not actually sentient and has no will of its own, it's self-learning algorithms, but it's not on its way to become a new life form.
An AI writing a screenplay, composing music, generating "art" is not saving lives nor benefiting humanity.
Why not? Doesn't have to be much worse than lots of the screenplays, music, and art currently produced by actual human beings. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how you apply it, A.I. is still "ruled" and governed by people. It's not actually sentient and has no will of its own, it's self-learning algorithms, but it's not on its way to become a new life form.
If the people who govern Artificial Intelligence put AI in full control of a far more efficient traffic light system, those same people would not be allowed to exhibit a will of their own and ignore red traffic lights if they so choose. They would be handing over that portion of their free will to non-human AI, to decide for them when it is permissible for them to start or stop.
That would be different from a situation today where everyone knows the traffic lights are adjusted by fellow humans to change color every few seconds, as dictated by humans. With AI making its own intelligent decisions about the lights and when humans are allowed move or not move, humans would be obeying the commands of non-human decision makers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 6, 2023 - 4:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
WillemAfo
(Member)
|
AI is a broad replacement mechanism whose very purpose is to mimic and thus replace the human being. It's literally in the acronym.
Not so. Human beings are more than mere "intelligence". No matter how you apply it, A.I. is still "ruled" and governed by people. It's not actually sentient and has no will of its own, it's self-learning algorithms, but it's not on its way to become a new life form.
An AI writing a screenplay, composing music, generating "art" is not saving lives nor benefiting humanity.
Why not? Doesn't have to be much worse than lots of the screenplays, music, and art currently produced by actual human beings.
Solium's point is exactly mine - I'm looking at the big picture and its long-term implications. You're looking at the immediate impact within a personal use case that isn't subject to the larger influences of the real-world.
You personally will be editing a film, discover that AI can "help" you, and you use it to sequence shot-reverse-shot talking heads dialogue scenes. In your personal scenario, that works for you because those scenes are boring and follow the same format so having an AI do it for you "frees" you up to work on other scenes.
In the real-world, studios hire editors. They discover that AI can do the assembly work that an expensive editor would normally have done. The studio will look at the numbers and say "yeah, audiences won't care whether the film is edited by AI or a human, they don't pay much attention anyway" and they'll replace the editor with the AI because it makes more business sense.
Furthermore, Junior editors/AEs, who learn on the job and would have been assigned the grunt-work of editing the boring dialogue scenes will no longer have that opportunity because an AI is doing it. As a result those junior editors will not gain the fundamental experience of "editing" in general, and their skills will slip and they will become obsolete.
The latter scenario is how all of these things will play out.
You can't pick and choose how much AI you want to benefit your argument. AI may not be capable of fully editing a film now, but it will be. And if we've naively set the standard and expectation in the early days of AI that human tasks can be done and are allowed to be done by AI, then we've laid the groundwork for full on replacement in the future once AI matures to that level. It's not just the logistics of implementing the AI, it is the social acceptability of adoption of AI in our lives. And a high adoption rate of AI won't inherently mean it's good, all it means is that society allowed it to be widely adopted. And it's very difficult if not impossible to roll that back once it has already happened.
The same goes for stories/movies/scripts/music. These are unique expressions of humanity, of living in this existence. An AI creating those works fundamentally devalues those humanistic expressions in a similar way we see now with the glut of streaming content. Except it's even worse because an AI will not only replace the works, but the learning process of mastering those artforms. Why would a teacher waste time teaching a music student the fundamentals of music theory when an AI can do it faster? Why would a student waste their time even learning it when they know an AI will make music faster than them and would more likely be used in industries instead of expensive student composers?
Look at it this way: all of your loved ones could be wiped out without you knowing and then replaced in all your texts, phone calls, and video calls with AI-generated talking faces, speech pattern-recognized reconstructed voices, even conversational tone reconstructed text messages. Via your argument, you would NOT know the difference, and so the end result to you would be the same (exempting the problem of not seeing them in person).
My argument is that AI's greatest risk is it devalues humanity and should thus be limited to only heavily-regulated industries. If you want to keep promoting AI from a perspective that AI doesn't devalue humanity, you have no choice but to follow that perspective to its logical conclusion and accept that your loved ones being replaced by AI in the example I gave above wouldn't devalue humanity either and would be equally acceptable to you. Someone would have to be a sociopath or at least highly narcissistic to believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
