The discourse on whether "AI" "works" or not misses the point. It frames utility in a very narrow, micro-economic way whereas the actual issues are macro-economic.
Climate change and reliance on fossil fuel are already hurting the global economy. The "AI" hype reinforces the need to keep fossil fuels. In addition, it causes a whole range of other macro-economic harms (see my earlier post https://scholar.social/@wim_v12e/116359082277792450). In that context, whether it "works" or not is irrelevant.
Wim🧮 (@[email protected])
You know that I am mostly concerned with the way the "AI" hype is making global warming worse. Most people are likely more concerned about economic harms, such as: - "AI" is depressing wages and income because employers or customers can now claim your skills are worth less, and that you should be more productive [1,2] - "AI" is causing unemployment, not because it is replacing workers but because companies fund their investment in "AI" by reducing their workforce. [3] (1/3) #AI #NoToAI



