What AI Is and Is Not-- or, When Electrocution of Innocents Becomes Profitable

It behooves us to be clear on what AI is and is not, as the confusion of the two is the source of both the giddy hype and the opaque risks.

Whether we admit it or not, we are collectively making an epoch-changing bet that AI is fantastic, unstoppable Progress with a capital P so large it blots out the sky. Like all bets, this bet is risky, and if it fails we will all pay the price in capital mis-allocated and promises shattered.

It behooves us, then, to be clear on what AI is and is not, as the confusion of the two is the source of both the giddy hype and the opaque risks. I am prompted to address this by an insightful essay submitted by longtime correspondent Simons Chase, who is both an AI builder/developer and supportive of my efforts to pin down what AI is and isn’t: The Complete Anti-Infl... Cook, Lulu Best Price: $8.15 Buy New $9.59 (as of 04:07 UTC - Details)

The Machine Is Made of Us: Pope Leo’s Encyclical, the Averaging of Language, and the Case for the Particular.

I build artificial intelligence for a living. I also think the Pope is mostly right. I want to explain why those two facts don’t cancel, and in doing so make a claim I believe is truer than the dread and truer than the hype: the machine is made of us. What we should fear is not that it is alien. It is that it is an average.

Trained on all of us, a model tends to speak as none of us. It moves toward the center of the distribution: the most probable next word, the safest phrasing, the generic competence that offends no one because it belongs to no one. This is the real face of the dehumanization the encyclical is reaching for. Not a hostile intelligence–a flattening one. The danger is not that the machine becomes too strange. It is that it makes everything, including us, a little more average. The particular voice, the earned turn of thought, the sentence only one person could have written–these live in the tail of the distribution, not its peak, and the tail is exactly what an averaging process erases first.

After all, a fast-food cheeseburger is nothing more than the average of our concept of food: the intersection of convenience, taste, and cost. It is right, and so utterly wrong, because in the long run it makes us metabolic donkeys, delivering a shortened, diseased life. Generic intelligence is the same bargain offered to the mind–the average of our language, plausible and cheap and frictionless, and over a long enough horizon just as wasting. A culture fed on the mean of its own thought gets the cognitive version of metabolic disease: fluent, abundant, and quietly losing the capacity for the particular.

So the question becomes: is averaging the only thing this technology can do? It is not. And the whole of my work has been an argument against it.

That averaging a probability distribution–i.e. AI–makes everything into Ultra-Processed Slop, is also addressed in this article:

What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity:
The Great Delusion: Li... Mearsheimer, John J. Check Amazon for Pricing. As a researcher studying AI’s effects on education, I have concluded that these tools only superficially improve writing. The bigger and more alarming impact they have is to constrict our full range of thoughts and our ability to generate original and useful ideas–what we call creative thinking. This seems to be especially true for students. AI’s smooth sentences, elegant transitions and rich vocabulary give the illusion of expansive creativity and individuality. But the underlying ideas often converge into a few homogenized categories.

In one study, he and his team examined personal statements from more than 370,000 students, and found that after ChatGPT became available, their essays suddenly used diverse and colorful language, but lacked truly creative ideas. And the linguistic coverup worked; post-ChatGPT essays were rated as more ‘creative’ by human judges, even if the substance of the essays trod familiar territory.

For the first time in human history, we have a technology that can generate words separately from the thoughts they represent. When a chatbot writes, it is predicting the next word that is most likely to make a ‘good’ sentence or essay, based on the text it’s been trained on.

We can now discern what AI is: a homogenizing, flattening probability distribution that implicitly claims eloquence is understanding and the words it has strung together represent thoughts and judgment, when they do no such thing: they are only strings of words selected as the most likely response to a prompt, a response that “rewards” the model generating the output.

We can now discern what AI is not: AI isn’t “thinking,” “understanding” or “making judgments”: AI tools are engines of linguistic automation, not engines of understanding. The simulation is not the thing simulated. AI is not a “mind,” it is a probability distribution.

Facility with natural language–eloquence–is neither insight nor understanding, though we mistake it for thinking, understanding, insight and judgment because it sounds like us.

AI is often presented as the techno-cognitive version of electricity, a public-service utility that everyone can use as they see fit, an affordable, beneficial commodity that is the acme of Progress with a capital P.

But AI is not electricity, though it is becoming a commodity. Fundamentally, AI is a mechanism of control that its owners present as a warm and fuzzy utility to sell us Heaven while they deliver Hell. Doctoru2019s Best High... Buy New $12.99 (as of 10:10 UTC - Details)

If we pursue this analogy–AI is like electricity, a universal benefit and an unstoppable force of Progress–we come to a very different place than what we’re being promised.

If AI is like electricity, then the real money for the utility isn’t in supplying low-cost power to the people, it’s in electrocuting innocent customers. Allow me to explain: malicious AI is where the money is being made, and that’s the equivalent of electrocuting innocent customers because that’s the most profitable use of electricity.

Like the loss of true creativity described above, the mechanisms of control are subtle and difficult to identify, as nobody notices the loss because they don’t even know how to look for it. As with Sherlock Holmes’ insight about the dog that didn’t bark, it’s what doesn’t happen that we miss because we don’t even know what to look for.

Read the Whole Article

Natureu2019s Way Sambu... Buy New $11.19 (as of 02:10 UTC - Details) BioEmblem Triple Magne... Check Amazon for Pricing. Nature’s Bounty ... Check Amazon for Pricing. Nature Made Vitamin D3... Check Amazon for Pricing.

The Best of Charles Hugh Smith