![]() We can draw our human-centered cartoon about large-model A.I. I hope the alternative I present here will be of use. works as well as they can follow stories about other technologies. I find that most people cannot follow the usual stories about how A.I. This isn’t a primer in computer science but a story about cute objects in time and space that serve as metaphors for how we have learned to manipulate information in new ways. works in a way that floats above the often mystifying technical details and instead emphasizes how the technology modifies-and depends on-human input. In this piece, I hope to explain how such A.I. as a form of human collaboration instead of as a new creature on the scene. In “ There Is No A.I.,” an earlier essay I wrote for this magazine, I discussed reconsidering large-model A.I. that isn’t in terms suggesting human obsolescence or replacement? If we can talk about our technology in a different way, maybe a better path to bringing it into society will appear. The lack of mooring for the term coincides with a metaphysical sensibility according to which the human framework will soon be transcended. for not addressing some other potential definition of it. It’s always possible to dismiss any specific commentary about A.I. It’s also a problem that “A.I.” has no fixed definition. This notion is furthered by biological terms like “neurons” and “neural networks,” and by anthropomorphizing ones like “learning” or “training,” which computer scientists use all the time. The usual terminology, starting with the phrase “artificial intelligence” itself, is all about the idea that we are making new creatures instead of new tools. Perhaps, to some degree, there’s a resistance to demystifying what we do because we want to approach it mystically. systems as giant impenetrable continuities. Most non-technical people can comprehend a thorny abstraction better once it’s been broken into concrete pieces you can tell stories about, but that can be a hard sell in the computer-science world. In addition to the apocalyptic atmosphere, we don’t do a good job of explaining what the stuff is and how it works. It is hard to comprehend this way of talking without wondering whether A.I. I have trouble understanding why some of my colleagues say that what they are doing might lead to human extinction, and yet argue that it is still worth doing. The worst of it is probably the sense of human obsolescence and doom that many of us convey. We have brought artificial intelligence into the world accompanied by ideas that are unhelpful and befuddling. I believe that the cartoons we have broadcast about A.I. On this point, I experience some tension with many in my community of computer scientists. Even experts use cartoons to talk to one another: sometimes a simplified view of things helps them see the forest for the trees. They aren’t perfect, but they give me good-enough intuitions. I have similar cartoons in my head about rockets, financial regulation, and nuclear power. I don’t know enough about vaccines to make one for myself, but I have a vaccine cartoon, and it gives me an approximate understanding it’s good enough to help me follow news about vaccines, and grasp the development process, the risks, and the likely future of the technology. It might not even be proper to call a technology a technology absent the elements needed to bring it usefully into the human world if we can’t understand how a technology works, we risk succumbing to magical thinking.Īnother way of saying this is that we need cartoons in our heads about how technologies work. They were an amazing medical achievement-and yet, because of widespread incomprehension, they didn’t land as well as they might have. A good example of this might be the mRNA vaccines created during the COVID epidemic. Without that kind of societal halo, technologies tend to be used ineffectively or incompletely. In order for it to be of use, it needs to be accompanied by other elements, such as popular understanding, good habits, and acceptance of shared responsibility for its consequences. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |