Motivated by what I see as misleading articles in coverage in the media, I will post a number of threads in the next several days on “AI myths” — ideas or claims about AI that should be questioned more. A couple of explanations would be useful to put these into context.
First, by “myths” I do not necessarily mean that the statements I will focus on are necessarily incorrect. I claim that they are accepted without sufficient evidence and they need to be questioned more, because they are having an oversized effect on public perceptions.
Second, I am not an AI researcher and some of the issues I raise will be in the hope of generating more questioning. Better ideas, correctives and further reactions are welcome.
AI myth 1. Turing hypothesis, about computers and the human mind. Alan Turing made huge breakthroughs in mathematics, including with his analysis of computable functions. His ideas also shaped the way that many people think about the human mind.
A universal Turing machine can compute any computable object. Turing then worked on whether computers (and thus Turing machines) can be intelligent — meaning that they can do the mental steps that humans do.
But he and many others later came to conceive of human mind as a Turing machine, too. If this is so, then machine intelligence — as an intellectual and computer science program — makes sense.
Another statement from leading AI experts and entrepreneurs has come out: safe.ai/statement-on-a…. It states “Mitigating the risk of global extinction from AI should be a global priority along other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
To me, this is disappointing. Of course, we should worry about all risks, and global extinction would be terrible. Yet I believe that this is the wrong thing to focus on, for at least three reasons.
First, despite what many experts argue, I am not convinced that there is a path from current generative AI towards anything approaching human intelligence. Models that become human-like and wipe out humanity seem to be more like Hollywood material, still.
Do new technologies benefit workers? I used to think this was a simple question. And it is at the heart of my new book with @baselinescene, Power and Progress, amazon.com/Power-Progress…
First of all, we need to be more specific about “workers”. The most optimistic answer is that all or most workers will benefit from technological advances (e.g., those increasing average labor productivity). But in general, some worker groups can be harmed.
So let us focus on “workers on average”. Here, most economic models suggest the answer is yes. In fact, almost all of the models I discussed in my graduate textbook on economic growth, amazon.com/Introduction-M… (published in 2008) imply this!
Preliminary but fairly clear results from the runoff of the Turkish elections show that President Erdogan will have a historic third term. This has implications for democracy and the economy.
For Turkish democracy, it’s not great news, but how bad things will be will depend on several factors. Let us distinguish five facets of democracy. First, judicial independence was very bad and probably cannot get much worse.
Second, the imperial presidency that Erdogan brought and jailing of politicians weakened the other pillar of separation of powers, the legislature, and there may be further sidelining of parliament, esp. since AKP now has fewer seats. This is one big threat.
I understand that my thread on Hayek from last week was insufficiently clear on some issues, so perhaps it is useful to clarify a few things. First, thanks to all who commented and reacted to the thread.
To start with, it is useful to clarify my main argument. It is this: we may no longer be able to identify the market with a decentralized system, because information and control of knowledge has become highly concentrated.
This was the basis for my claim that we need a new regulatory framework and in particular democratic regulation of digital technologies and AI. One can find passages in Hayek where he admits the need for regulation. But I’m not aware of this argument in Hayek’s writing.
Question (I have often wondered): Do radical left political movements, including communist or socialist labor organizations, help or hinder workers’ interests?
Thread👇
On the pro side, radical left may be the “tip of the spear” for the labor movement, especially because it has more dedicated rank-and-file, organized around a common ideology. Threat from radical left may force capital owners to make concessions.