Open Question:
What is the end of AI systems?
Like the end for a car is transportation. Therefore, we continue to iterate on the design to improve power, efficiency, or style.
Can a similar focus on end be applied to AI? Some seem clear like AlphaGo, self-driving cars, medical imaging, etc. Really the challenge seems to be with LLMs. Is the lack of clear end contributing to misuse and harm caused by LLMs?
Possibly. You could say that the end of a tool is decided upon by the designer. In which case this would ended be the end of most of these systems.
A point that leads to a follow-up question. What should the end of AI systems be? The current answer would seem to be a disappointing result for the amount of resources poured into it.
@wwhitlow The officially propagated end goal is that people wouldn't have the *need* to do any (thought) work.
So far, so good: But there are a few things to keep in mind here:
– the above statement is about the employee's freedom, but it could actually be the employer in a capitalist system who, in reality, profits more from this by just firing everyone (assuming, AI some time in the future has consistent(!) equally good output)
1/
– What is considered "work"? What work AI can't replace? And what work do people want to pass (down) to someone/something else? We see artists having a hard time right now competing with "AI art" (of course, this is not mutually exclusive: There might be artists embracing "AI art")—they certainly don't want their craft to be replaced by AI as they consider the creative process part of what they enjoy about the work ("the journey is its own reward")
2/2
William Whitlow
Zuri (he/him) ❌️👑 🕐 CET
Anthony