I struggle to understand Silicon Valley’s libertarians’ allergic reaction to discussing problems caused by the extreme homogeneity of the research circle. The same is true for many in the AI research community of which I am a part. As this thoughtfully written letter to SCOTUS from physicists explains,
The implication that physics or “hard sciences” are somehow divorced from the social realities of racism in our society is completely fallacious.
The exclusion of people from physics solely on the basis of the color of their skin is an outrageous outcome that ought to be a top priority for rectification.
The rhetorical pretense that including everyone in physics class is somehow irrelevant to the practice of physics ignores the fact that we have learned and discovered all the amazing facts about the universe through working together in a community.
The benefits of inclusivity and equity are the same for physics as they are for every other aspect of our world.
The statement holds true for AI and any type of “ism”. One would think that the people trying to “stop AI from harming society” would pay attention to this sort of stuff.
No American company would call this a production ready person detection system.
At this point in these types of conversations people usually mention that there aren’t qualified this-or-that group of people who are deep learning researchers. I can name at least 10 extremely qualified female researchers in my sleep--including one who left the field due to exclusion--and swathes of them can be found here (LINK).
I am very concerned about the future of AI. Not because of the risk of rogue machines taking over. But because of the homogeneous, one dimensional group of men who are currently involved in advancing the technology.
Concerned AI researcher
I am concerned for both reasons, b/c one promotes the other re/ bias, etc.
But what also has me worried is that even though some #AI luminaries have seen the light and called for a moratorium, it is for the wrong reasons.
Legislation will never catch up with the exponential evolution of #GAI, not even in the #eu
Concerned observer and commentator
« Legislation will never catch up with the exponential evolution of … »
Probably not if things go on like they went so far.
Isn’t that (forecasted) exponential evolution dependent (/directly related to) a primary energy demand exponential growth ?
🤔
(1/3)
Our exchange gave me pause. This is why I have just finished writing a thread regarding the current state of #AI regulations in the West which you might enjoy reading:
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/110528310717257043
Re/ energy demand and exponential growth--what are you referring to?
Here are some preliminary thoughts of mine on the topic:
#AI, though needing a lot of energy, is not the same as #CryptoMining...
🙏
By "exponential growth of our primary energy demand", I refer to a curve like this one https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy.
Maybe I should have started by asking myself for a link that explain more in detail what you call "the exponential evolution of ai" ?
🤓