Many people throw out the word ‘theoretical’ as some kind of way to imply that something ‘isn’t real’ or worth worrying about. Something might seem implausible until it happens. Gravity waves were once ‘only’ theoretical after all :)
There are plenty of AI dystopian predictions, and many of these are possible and impactful. Many of these theories are based on solid understandings of human nature. It is hard to know how technology will evolve, but we have some useful tools to make risk assessments.
> The dangers of corporations being in control aren’t.
There have been plenty of dystopian predictions about corporate control too. I take the point that we’ve seen them over and over throughout history.
I'm saying that most predictions about the dystopian AI future are typical of any generation encountering a disruptive technology. They're exaggerated and built from assumptions.
They also always seem to conclude that the answer to these problems is to keep these machines centralized in the hands of big companies and governments, which is a very strange conclusion when they tend to get paychecks from those groups.
At the extreme end you even get these people talking about AI like it's going to be some monstrous world eating god.
All innovation has negative consequence.
Television lead to couch potato. 24 7 news. Television stars.
Radio killed the local performer.
Social media addiction and the erasure of culture and increase of depression.
Cars, if you go back far enough, got plenty of criticisms as well.
The AI powered future, should it come to exist will have downsides. You'll have a very different landscape to deal with as a creative where your artistic output isn't valued for individual works of art. You'll have very different expectations of how art and media is personalized. It will be hard to trust video or pictures or audio again, because they are so easily faked.
Our way of life, as it stands today, will not survive. That's not bad, just different.
The AI critical people tend to have some valid criticisms, but at the end of the day their criticisms are rooted in a desire to maintain a status quo until we are "sure it's safe" and that just doesn't fly.
We don't know how this will all pan out until we try it, so as we have always done, we will try it and deal with the consequences as they appear.
> They also always seem to conclude that the answer to these problems is to keep these machines centralized in the hands of big companies and governments, which is a very strange conclusion when they tend to get paychecks from those groups.
I'm not sure who you mean by they.
I'd suggest a vast majority of the public mindshare (in the US at least) of technology gone wrong and dystopias come from sci-fi.
In general, I have not noticed sci-fi making such conclusions. I rarely notice them drawing any hard conclusions. Readers often come away with a mix of emotions: curiosity, anxiety, excitement, wonder, or simply the joy of stepping outside one's
usual reality.
What I read and watch tends to paint a picture more than pitch or imply solutions.
- 1984 seems to make the opposite point, right? It is the classic example of the surveillance state. as such, it is a counter example of centralized power.
- A Scanner Darkly (movie) explore the question of who watches the watchers. It does not paint a pretty picture of the agency doing the surveillance.
- The Ministry of the Future shows how a government agency can't really do much without widespread decentralized underground support. As drones get cheaper, civilian activists become terrorists who assassinate climate unfriendly business people. Spoiler alert: it may not fit the pattern of a dystopian novel.
- Her (a man falling in love with his OS) explores the personal side in a compelling way.
By the day I tend to refer to people who are professional AI ethics types.
Not sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment. I would also classify most science fiction as pretty solidly out of touch with what reality is going to look like. It shows us exaggerated aspects of what writers think the future is going to look like, not realistic predictions.
> I would also classify most science fiction as pretty solidly out of touch with what reality is going to look like.
What exactly do you mean by ‘out of touch’?
(Personally, I avoid ‘most science fiction’ by not reading all of it. :\) But seriously, I try to read and watch the insightful and brain stretching kinds.)
You wouldn’t be the first to express disbelief. The majority of possible scenarios never happen. But the practice of thinking through them and taking them seriously is valuable. Consider the history of the discipline of scenario planning…
> Early in [the 20th] century, it was unclear how airplanes would affect naval warfare. When Brigadier General Billy Mitchell proposed that airplanes might sink battleships by dropping bombs on them, U.S. Secretary of War Newton Baker remarked, “That idea is so damned nonsensical and impossible that I’m willing to stand on the bridge of a battleship while that nitwit tries to hit it from the air.” Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy, was also incredulous: “Good God! This man should be writing dime novels.”
> Even the prestigious Scientific American proclaimed in 1910 that “to affirm that the aeroplane is going to ‘revolutionize’ naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration.”
> In hindsight, it is difficult to appreciate why air power’s potential was unclear to so many. But can we predict the future any better than these defense leaders did…
> Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking
How can companies combat the overconfidence and tunnel vision common to so much decision making? By first identifying basic trends and uncertainties and then using them to construct a variety of future scenarios. By Paul J.H. Schoemaker
Of course, reading sci-fi novels is not the same as systematic scenario planning. But the former tends to show greater imagination and richness.
> Our way of life, as it stands today, will not survive. That's not bad, just different.
What do you mean by way of life?
Even if we are only talking about supposedly purely subjective things (like fashion) or seemingly arbitrary things (like 60 hertz power), or social agreements (like driving on the right side of the road), almost everything has implications.
I reject the notion that people should punt on value judgments.
Even if you subscribe some kind of moral relativism, it is wiser to reserve judgment until you see what happens.
I don't subscribe to moral relativism. Some value systems work better than others in specific contexts.
Written word belongs to the scribes at the monasteries, this new 'printing press' will unleash dangers beyond our imagination, people may not trust the authority of the church anymore
