As I see it:
One needs to distinguish the environment, above all the kind of data fed to the AI.
If you're within a restricted area, feed only data to it proven as right, done and controlled by experts, you may get outcomes really
assisting - but have to answer the question, if it's worth all the effort instead of just let the experts do their job in the first place (what's the question of amount of data, and what you want to get out of it.)
But if you unleash the AI, let it freely, and unlimited feed itself through all the www's junk then all bets are off.
One does not need to be an AI expert to understand that.
One only has to understand: Computers cannot think.
And they never will. Because it needs (a lot) more to think than just to compare things, no matter how huge the database and fast the computing may be.
There is no problem with that, as long as it's been understood, seen, and handled as what it is: Some kind of toy, an experiment, an assistant at most - may be a new
subsidiary alternative, but not a replacement.
But already there the problems start.
Not only most tend to sacrify anything for even the slightest bit of more comfort, most people also cannot handle assisting systems.
They're not willing to understand: A pocket calculator is of no much use if you don't know math.
They just see:'Cool, this thing is doing all the math for me, so I don't need to learn it anymore.' - Wrong!
Even those call themselves modern, educated people want to believe in magic, want to believe someday we're all going to live on Star Trek's Enterprise. When you want to booze you simply go to the machine and say:'Evil Schnaps!' - not comprehend this in the 'system' of how our society works.
People are amazed:'Hey look, the computer is writing/painting/composing all by itself.'
Not realizing:
a) It's no art at all, it's just composed anyhow by already existing things. (I always need to laugh loudly when someone sues ChatGPT for copyrights. Of course. They sell things they've stolen.)
b) It's dull.
c) We don't need it. Because there already is, and by real humans still yet produced way more, and
way better books, music, art... one cannot enjoy in a live time.
People don't read good books anymore. But if a machine craps out some bad text they are on it like hungry vultures.
People are amazed of the magic of electricity as they were amazed of the steam engine:'Hey, it's moving all by itself
magically!'
All you need to dazzle humans is some
thing that does something by itself, seeming magically, means they don't understand how it works, and don't let them look behind the stage (see
Mechanical Turk); it's even better when it's lighted up colorful, and flashing - that's kind of hypnotic, too.
People look at their new car's dashboard:'Hey, look at all those fancy colors and pictures.'
They are dazzeld by the nice looks, not realizing there is not a single useful information more, but only distracting crap, only.
That's the way you sell useless junk people neither need, nor want.
And that's where the problems start: sell out.
Everywhere you look, AI is the solution for all of our problems.
Not enough growth of the stocks exchange market? AI will deliver unfinite wealth.
Climate changes? - AI will find the solution.
AI will design better cars. I'm happy if I find a good used one, since the new ones contain so many sloppy designed features they are more in the work shop than driving...
AI now must be used everywhere for everything, not asking for what it's suitable, or when it's better not to use it.
That's the problem.
All you get in media is where AI delivers good results.
One needs to search for all the times AI delivered (sometimes funny, but unusable) obscure shit.
That's the situation when something should be sold:
Benefits and advantages, only, while this is not true for nothing.
But people like to believe it everytime again, especially when nobody's objecting is heard.
Because people also believe in new is better the critics (which does not mean to contradict) are always easily presented to be implausible grey beards by just calling them 'incurable old farts stick into the past, unwilling to change, trying to prevent progress/evolution/future, "yeah, yeah everything was better in former times"'
That's the bait, because most of the people eat that believe exactly in this themselves.
While all the 'grey beards' are trying to do is to get some reasonable perspective into an otherwise blind hype.
There is a word for that: sophisticated - that's not a bad thing.
What
Phishfry said above one has to reckon with more plane crashes, at least groundings.
Because it's not about to get better products, it's about to sell AI.
The point is (again) not the technology,
but how it's handled for what by whom.
As I elaborated in my other posts above:
In my eyes AI neither is yet a technology mature enough to be used by non-experts, nor is the society ready for it.
Everytime a new technology is getting into the hands of greedy salesmen too soon, humankind suffers.
That's the problem with AI as I see it,
not AI itself.
Bottom line:
So IMO it's a good thing if some people - especially experts - dare to object when something his hyped, and say:
'Hold your horses! Slow down! Don't overkill! Be reasonable.'
www.acquisition.gov
mastodon.social
techthelead.com
