I prefer this idea of co-creation to the idea of “raising AI”.
I’m ‘one of those people’ that sees the amazing potential of AI but is concerned about the unregulated march towards AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). For this reason I prefer not to anthropomorphise an AI chat and don’t say thank you (although I sometimes do say please, out of habit). I am not trying to train it to be more human or to replace other humans in its interactions. I completely agree with the article that we should be using AI more narrowly to automate and improve efficiency, but not to replace creativity or personal human interactions.
I also don’t think that using polite words creates a more friendly or caring tool anymore than I think that than a shop assistant saying “have a nice day” necessarily means that they really care about my day. Sincerity is conveyed in the tone and context of the interaction and not just the specific words used.
In that regard I do think that interacting more meaningfully with the AI to train it to give useful results is important. There is no more point in saying “that’s wrong, try again” to an AI than there would be to a student - if you don’t give any feedback how can they be expected to meaningfully improve? The added benefit of current AI over previous algorithms is its ability to improve, and I do think that we can play a role there.
Very interesting perspective. Sincere thanks for writing this. I wouldn’t argue the value in all of us using language and methods to build a healthier AI. My main concern is we (humans) struggle to do this with the earth, and our children. Humans’ track record on healthy investment in ourselves and our world isn’t great. Even if AI is merely a tool, the craft person, who genuinely cares for his/her tools seems to be more of a dying breed, compared to say, the average consumer who largely approaches tools as sale items in a Black Friday shopping cart or leaves them to specialists they’d rather pay to do the work. That said, I very much appreciate the optimism in your post. It gave me SO much to think about. The responsibility before us with AI is legitimately hard for me to wrap my head around. Thank you for helping me do think more about this.
We have to model the AI we want. A co-creation.
Sarah. This is masterful. Every single section. Each line insightful. "Usage is curriculum".
I feel like this is Google maps before we crowd sourced it to suggest alternate routes in times of accidents.
Thank you for offering us back agency at a moment when the headlines are only screaming the rightful risks of this new technology.
I will re-read and write more.
Meantime, im sharing this to my circle of friends and family as a "must read ... right through to the Amy Winehouse section"
An interesting article!
I prefer this idea of co-creation to the idea of “raising AI”.
I’m ‘one of those people’ that sees the amazing potential of AI but is concerned about the unregulated march towards AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). For this reason I prefer not to anthropomorphise an AI chat and don’t say thank you (although I sometimes do say please, out of habit). I am not trying to train it to be more human or to replace other humans in its interactions. I completely agree with the article that we should be using AI more narrowly to automate and improve efficiency, but not to replace creativity or personal human interactions.
I also don’t think that using polite words creates a more friendly or caring tool anymore than I think that than a shop assistant saying “have a nice day” necessarily means that they really care about my day. Sincerity is conveyed in the tone and context of the interaction and not just the specific words used.
In that regard I do think that interacting more meaningfully with the AI to train it to give useful results is important. There is no more point in saying “that’s wrong, try again” to an AI than there would be to a student - if you don’t give any feedback how can they be expected to meaningfully improve? The added benefit of current AI over previous algorithms is its ability to improve, and I do think that we can play a role there.
Very interesting perspective. Sincere thanks for writing this. I wouldn’t argue the value in all of us using language and methods to build a healthier AI. My main concern is we (humans) struggle to do this with the earth, and our children. Humans’ track record on healthy investment in ourselves and our world isn’t great. Even if AI is merely a tool, the craft person, who genuinely cares for his/her tools seems to be more of a dying breed, compared to say, the average consumer who largely approaches tools as sale items in a Black Friday shopping cart or leaves them to specialists they’d rather pay to do the work. That said, I very much appreciate the optimism in your post. It gave me SO much to think about. The responsibility before us with AI is legitimately hard for me to wrap my head around. Thank you for helping me do think more about this.