Earlier this month, a popular lifestyle magazine introduced a new "fashion and lifestyle editor" to its huge social media following. "Reem", who on first glance looked like a twentysomething woman who understood both fashion and lifestyle, was proudly announced as an "AI enhanced team member". That is, a fake person, generated by artificial intelligence. Reem would be making product recommendations to SheerLuxe's followers – or, to put it another way, doing what SheerLuxe would otherwise pay a person to do. The reaction was entirely predictable: outrage, followed by a hastily issued apology. One suspects Reem may not become a staple of its editorial team.
This is just the latest in a long line of walkbacks of "exciting AI projects" that have been met with fury by the people they're meant to excite. The Prince Charles Cinema in Soho, London, cancelled a screening of an AI-written film in June, because its regulars vehemently objected. Lego was pressured to take down a series of AI-generated images it published on its website. Doctor Who started experimenting with generative AI, but quickly stopped after a wave of complaints. A company swallows the AI hype, thinks jumping on board will paint it as innovative, and entirely fails to understand the growing anti-AI sentiment taking hold among many of its customers.
[...] Some members of the anti-AI movement have reclaimed the name "luddites". I come from tech circles, where luddite is considered an insult – but this new movement is proud of the designation. As Brian Merchant, author of Blood in the Machine, points out, the original luddites did not immediately turn to rebellion. They sought dialogue and compromise first. The new luddites, too, seek dialogue and compromise. Most realise AI is here to stay; they demand not a reversal, but an altogether more reasonable and fair approach to its adoption. And it's easy to see how they might be more successful than their 19th-century counterparts. The apocryphal Ned Ludd did not have social media. Downtrodden workers used to be easier to ignore. The internet is the greatest tool for organising in history.
Anger at AI companies is leading to some unlikely alliances. When the Recording Industry Association of America recently sued two AI music-generation companies for "copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale", musicians and fans took to the internet to voice their support. "Amazing. AI companies have me rooting for the damn record labels," said one composer. Old arguments are being set aside as the new threat of AI is addressed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as they say.
[...] There is often a group of protesters outside the offices of OpenAI in San Francisco, holding "Pause AI" banners. This sentiment will only grow if AI is left unregulated. It may be tempting for countries to treat AI development as an arms race, to rush ahead irrespective of the cost. But polls show the general public thinks this is a bad idea. AI developers, and the people regulating the nascent AI industry, must listen to the growing AI backlash.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Thursday August 01 2024, @12:13AM
On the one hand, there are many problems out there that have unintuitive solutions that are highly ideal. (i.e. simple to implement, or really cheap, etc) Remember Myth Busters? Adam Savage was trying to build a contraption that more or less resembled the articulation of the human arm to try to fling a playing card, and Jamie Hyneman just built a machine with two spinning wheels that hucked the card kinda like an auto baseball pitching machine. I think our current technology can potentially find unintuitive solutions like in that example. I mean the "AI" probably has a loooong list of ways to fling stuff to work from and can consider them all without hastily ruling some of them out.
But there are other problems that'll be a lot harder for an AI to find that result for because they require living in a human-body for a life-time. For example- When Indiana Jones, armed with his trusty whip, has to save himself from a sword-wielding man. Idea! He pulls his gun out and BLAM, shoots the guy just after he finishes his neato sword-stunt. Hilarious, right? I have trouble believing the current AI models could come up with a script that would land on that action if it weren't already a trope. How would these models truely know what humans find to be unexpected?
So to answer your question: AI will surprise us with what it can do, but that won't mark the end of humans surprising us. Kinda like how the invention of the photograph was awesome, and solved lots of problems, but it was still a BFD when the motion camera came along. If you want my prediction it'll be a big fn deal when they finally put a robotic body out in the real world to train on.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈