Emeritus Prof Christopher May

As Sarah O'Connor (FT) argues, while Govt.s want to 'unleash' the potential(s) of AI & associated technologies, voters are more sceptical about the positive impact of such deployment, not least as historically technological change's immediate negative impacts hit workers hard(er).

as she sums it up:
'many people feel they are in a speeding car without either a seatbelt or their hands on the wheel. In those circumstances, nobody should be surprised if they vote to hit the brakes'

#AI #workers

Mar 31 at 5:06amWeb
Show threadMikeStok16h ago
@ChrisMayLA6 that feeling is what many a Tesla owner has paid good money for.
Show threadTheriac15h ago
@ChrisMayLA6
I'm mildly skeptical of the FT as their intended audience will contain those with vested interests
Show threadEmeritus Prof Christopher May15h ago

@Theriac

To be fair, I think your argument is with my summary (I picked out one particularly salient element), rather than Sarah O'Connor's more detailed argument - here's a link but it *is* behind a paywall (although relatively easily circumvented)

https://www.ft.com/content/1ef171a4-7068-4b0f-b8bd-8183c5d760b5?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Why do politicians want AI to go faster?

Bullish rhetoric about ‘unleashing’ the technology is badly out of touch with the sensibilities of many voters

Financial Times
Show threadTheriac15h ago
@ChrisMayLA6
fair enough I'll edit my previous post until I've managed to read the article
Show threadbeemoh10h ago
@ChrisMayLA6 The sole "potential" of AI is how much money it might potentially make people with far too much of it as it is.
Show threadEmeritus Prof Christopher May10h ago

@beemoh

Well, without wishing to support AI's deployment - for it to potentially make money, it much be offering something to someone.... which is not to say we should be welcoming it, only that its 'potential' is highly;y focussed but not just on those supplying it....