Very good point. One could also argue that 99% of economic activities don't require much intelligence. Many things that occur in jobs from day to day are actually quite routine and mundane.
Of course many people even fail at that.
The average investor underperforms the relevant index, not because they can't replicate it, but because they actively act improperly. Despite an easier and more effective means being available.
No question it can be useful. I agree that it has good uses, I just am hoping that people don't start using it in inappropriate places.
They already are
Another mistake would be removing the vital step of human review, and just using the output without thinking.
They already are, but why is that "vital"
I think a lot of algorithmically generated output doesn't need human review.
Look at DLSS, do we really need a human to review?
AI is mostly pattern recognition, right now, and we use a lot of bad poorly thought out patterns.
AI will inflict whatever stereotypes it is programmed with.
The reason we didn't see the balloons is because "all" the airborne threats were fast and very fast, so the systems didn't look for slow moving objects. Like who'd launch an attack from a blimp?
Now I'll admit NORAD not noticing the balloons is a bad pattern in the pattern recognition algorithm, but that's all the rest of our AI/Deep learning systems are today.
My kids are into chess, they want to play Chess-GPT, but they also thought it was funny when Chess-GPT started moving players illegally.
As digital natives, they have a very interesting perspective on this stuff.
There's a public fear of AI becoming sentient and killing all mankind. I suspect that what actually happens will be much less dramatic, but still very harmful to the world: eliminating a ton of jobs and making a lot of people permanently unemployable.
This has been a serious problem for years. We have to find some way to make these people useful in society.
We used to allow paying disabled/impaired people less than minimum wage, so they were still doing something useful, and it was economically appropriate.
That has been banned in Ontario.
The US army rejects "lower" IQ people, as not being smart enough to contribute positively I've heard 83, now 92.
I don't actually dispute this, even with the increasing specialization, and well documented workflows, some tasks might be difficult for them to learn and adapt, and that bar keeps getting higher.
What do we do when nearly half the population is unemployable, because they can't do the job, or there is a much cheaper alternative to do that job.
Do we force companies to hire people and have them do busywork?
Do we allow an ever growing pool of people with no purpose in life? We see that now, where we have a rather small portion of the population, and look at the damage we do. What happens when 40, 50, 60% of the population has no purpose and nothing to do?
I think the end result is actually as dramatic as machines rising up, we'll have massive social upheaval, by people who don't know what they're doing.
