The state of AI

At the end of his ground-breaking novel The Shockwave Rider, John Brunner writes:

“There are two kinds of fools. One says, ‘This is old, and therefore good.’ And one says, ‘This is new, and therefore better.’”

This captures the current discourse around AI remarkably well.

On one side, we see an influx of investment, personnel, and strategic focus that seems, at times, detached from economic fundamentals.

On the other, there is a rejection of the technology that goes beyond skepticism and occasionally borders on the ideological, often accompanied by claims of a uniquely human superiority that is treated as self-evident rather than examined.

This text is an attempt to step outside both positions. The goal is not to defend or attack AI, but to understand it: to explore why it is simultaneously glorified and vilified, and what a more realistic trajectory might look like.

There is, of course, much more to AI than its generative capabilities. But much of the current discourse collapses these distinctions. For the sake of consistency, this text will do the same.

1/9

Technology: The state of AI

AI is an interesting phenomenon: It is praised as ultimate solution and evil at the same time. This text is an attempt to step outside both positions. The goal is not to defend or attack AI, but to understand it: to explore why it is simultaneously glorified and vilified, and what a more realistic trajectory might look like.

Literarily Starved
@masek except 'AI' makes people stupid and is ruining the world.

@LanceJZ Both are IMHO effects of what I describe, not inherent properties.

The destruction is an effect of hiding the real costs of AI and complete lack of conflict moderation.

The negative effect on intellectual capabilities is a direct result of using an unsuitable tool for the wrong task.

I have a rough plan for another post in that series where I try to drill down on those aspects.

Adults Lose Skills to AI. Children Never Build Them.

Discussions of cognitive offloading often miss a critical distinction: What AI does to a 45-year-old's brain is categorically different from what it does to a 14-year-old's.

Psychology Today

@LanceJZ The problem of the article is, that he confuses technology with implementation.

For commercial reasons, AI companies have optimized the chatbots to maximize engagement, not to fulfill a certain task like e.g. "teaching".

I touched on that topic in https://infosec.exchange/@masek/116295323969252944

Using the current AI implementation in education is like making a narcissistic psychopath a teacher at the local school.

As I pointed out in the summary, in order for AI to succeed it must be trained to the task it shall do, not to be an accommodating chat partner.

I picked out teaching as example because that is where we really need an improvement.