I’m well aware that CEOs are pushing the exact opposite of responsible AI use. But that doesn’t mean it is fully impossible to use the tool responsibly, which is also substantiated in your linked article:
A small subset of participants though – less than 10% – worked differently and used AI as a tool to gather data that they then analysed themselves. These individuals made more accurate predictions than others participants and showed stronger brain activation too.
Ming suggests that ultimately, the goal could be a form of “hybrid intelligence” where humans and machines “do the hard stuff” together. By this she means we need to think first and use tools to challenge us later, rather than simply letting them answer questions for us. Kosmyna agrees and suggests learning subjects without AI tools first to build a foundation and then think about using LLMs.
It’s like dynamite. It can cause a lot of harm, but also make reasonable things like mining and demolition a lot easier. The difference is Alfred Nobel was smart enough not to distribute free samples on every street corner.
I’m sticking to the kratom analogy because it, unlike dynamite, is produced by a facility somewhere, nobody can tell what’s inside of it, the composition can be changed by surprise, and there’s no actual rules or way to figure out what responsible usage looks like. Maybe 10% of people will be fine forever with the mystery tool. Maybe their lack of addiction is the glitch.
Isn’t it curious how the utopian fantasy that’s promised by every AI CEO seems to contradict pesky reality? At some point, you might even get worried that AI appears to inherently erode critical thinking skills.
Maybe people could responsibly use kratom to create better output too. Who knows?
I’m well aware that CEOs are pushing the exact opposite of responsible AI use. But that doesn’t mean it is fully impossible to use the tool responsibly, which is also substantiated in your linked article:
It’s like dynamite. It can cause a lot of harm, but also make reasonable things like mining and demolition a lot easier. The difference is Alfred Nobel was smart enough not to distribute free samples on every street corner.
I’m sticking to the kratom analogy because it, unlike dynamite, is produced by a facility somewhere, nobody can tell what’s inside of it, the composition can be changed by surprise, and there’s no actual rules or way to figure out what responsible usage looks like. Maybe 10% of people will be fine forever with the mystery tool. Maybe their lack of addiction is the glitch.