Re: “Averting the AI apocalypse” [May 28, Opinion]:
Whereas the writer’s well-intentioned plans are imaginative, they’re fatally flawed. Synthetic intelligence is a software, and as tool-using creatures we are going to design and make use of a software in any means that’s to our benefit. Whether or not we achieve benefit (revenue) by curing cancers or by creating ever extra amusing pretend cat movies, we are going to use our instruments to take action.
James Whittaker proposes restraining AI by limiting the kinds of knowledge we use to coach the machines. However such a limitation can’t be completed by regulation and licensing: Whittaker admits authorities is just not good at regulating newly emergent applied sciences. How would an “unlicensed” AI coaching program even be detected?
The Op-Ed proposes authorities fairness possession in firms engaged in AI. However it’s possible that AI improvement is not going to, actually, be restricted to some highly effective firms and can as an alternative be broadly exploited all through the financial system. To my thoughts, Whittaker’s proposals to regulate AI require a profound hard-left shift in governance that’s by no means going to occur right here.
Anthony Claiborne, Bellevue