Re: “Averting the AI apocalypse” [May 28, Opinion]:
While the author’s well-intentioned plans are imaginative, they are fatally flawed. Artificial intelligence is a tool, and as tool-using creatures we will design and employ a tool in any way that is to our advantage. Whether we gain advantage (profit) by curing cancers or by creating ever more amusing fake cat videos, we will use our tools to do so.
James Whittaker proposes restraining AI by limiting the types of data we use to train the machines. But such a limitation cannot be accomplished by regulation and licensing: Whittaker admits government is not good at regulating newly emergent technologies. How would an “unlicensed” AI training program even be detected?
The Op-Ed proposes government equity ownership in companies engaged in AI. But it is likely that AI development will not, in fact, be limited to a few powerful companies and will instead be widely exploited throughout the economy. To my mind, Whittaker’s proposals to control AI require a profound hard-left shift in governance that is never going to happen here.
Anthony Claiborne, Bellevue
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.