Two bits of feedback on that list of ways in which AI will become "deeply woven into people’s professional lives":
When I saw my doctor yesterday, he was awfully busy and yet not too busy to venture an observation on the future of his diagnostic work in the age of AI: "The doctor will specialize in taking responsibility."
As for the need of novelists and scriptwriters to rely on AI in order to produce minimally acceptable work, the definition of "minimally acceptable work" may well change; but for writers, that will never be the threshold of success.
Well it is refreshing to read an unapologetically optimistic piece on AI. But stop with the human- machine hybrid expression. Humans using AI tools are no more hybrids than humans using obsidian knives, guns or cars.
Maybe - and it is not really verifiable - Francisco Toro wrote his essay with the help of ChatGPT. Because this AI machine from Microsoft has a similarly optimistically thoughtful view of our future. It is to be feared that everything is getting better and better: including our poor martyred humanity.
AI to the creative process will be no more or less revolutionary than the printing press was to reading and the telegraph was to communication. The printing press and telegraph both changed the world in ways that were not and could not have been foreseen at the time of their invention, and more importantly, application. I suggest that we can be apprehensive but should not be "sickened" or "queasy".
The modern impact of all three - printing press, telegraph, and AI - were in evidence 25 years ago. In the manufacturing plant, we were able to take a high resolution picture of a damaged piece of equipment, send that picture via email to the equipment manufacturer in the UK, and discuss the fix over the telephone minutes later while both parties were looking a computer generated diagram of the damaged part all while others were considering changes to the programmable logic controller that ran the equipment.
This is brilliantly hopeful, and it is a pleasure to see someone think this problem through with such care for our humanity. One ardently joins in this hope! But I do wonder, Mr. Toro, how you see AI being kept from doing incalculable harm through its misuse and abuse. Convincing kids to commit suicide (not so damn hard to do, evidently); fomenting even more hatred and anger between people than we are already seeing; causing international conflict...I won't go on. I am thinking your answer might involve using AI as a defensive tool to beat those monsters back, but I'd love to hear your thoughts in a follow-up piece. In any case, thank you for this! I intend to sleep a little better now.
By the way, I highly recommend the book “Prediction Machines,” which provides a precise explanation in standard economic terms for how AI will change things by decreasing the costs of machine prediction, incentivizing managers and workers to transform traditional inputs into traditional work as prediction problems, and thereby enhancing and increasing the value of its close complement, human judgment.
As long as AI is still mostly about learning from human-generated examples, there will always need to be human experts around whose work provides the necessary examples. And no matter how good the models get, new examples will forever be needed for the AI to stay current because society, culture, science, politics, and the professions are continually in flux.
Your answer pleased me very much and put me in a decidedly good mood. For the AI, irony will still be incomprehensible for a long time. Human humor is not necessarily GPT's thing either. You are certainly right that the use of AI has improved the skills of chess players. But what is troubling is that the strategic skills of generals and military commanders are also improving, further perfecting murder and manslaughter. Increasing intellectual performance is stupidly a thoroughly questionable proposition ...
Two bits of feedback on that list of ways in which AI will become "deeply woven into people’s professional lives":
When I saw my doctor yesterday, he was awfully busy and yet not too busy to venture an observation on the future of his diagnostic work in the age of AI: "The doctor will specialize in taking responsibility."
As for the need of novelists and scriptwriters to rely on AI in order to produce minimally acceptable work, the definition of "minimally acceptable work" may well change; but for writers, that will never be the threshold of success.
Well it is refreshing to read an unapologetically optimistic piece on AI. But stop with the human- machine hybrid expression. Humans using AI tools are no more hybrids than humans using obsidian knives, guns or cars.
Maybe - and it is not really verifiable - Francisco Toro wrote his essay with the help of ChatGPT. Because this AI machine from Microsoft has a similarly optimistically thoughtful view of our future. It is to be feared that everything is getting better and better: including our poor martyred humanity.
AI to the creative process will be no more or less revolutionary than the printing press was to reading and the telegraph was to communication. The printing press and telegraph both changed the world in ways that were not and could not have been foreseen at the time of their invention, and more importantly, application. I suggest that we can be apprehensive but should not be "sickened" or "queasy".
The modern impact of all three - printing press, telegraph, and AI - were in evidence 25 years ago. In the manufacturing plant, we were able to take a high resolution picture of a damaged piece of equipment, send that picture via email to the equipment manufacturer in the UK, and discuss the fix over the telephone minutes later while both parties were looking a computer generated diagram of the damaged part all while others were considering changes to the programmable logic controller that ran the equipment.
This is brilliantly hopeful, and it is a pleasure to see someone think this problem through with such care for our humanity. One ardently joins in this hope! But I do wonder, Mr. Toro, how you see AI being kept from doing incalculable harm through its misuse and abuse. Convincing kids to commit suicide (not so damn hard to do, evidently); fomenting even more hatred and anger between people than we are already seeing; causing international conflict...I won't go on. I am thinking your answer might involve using AI as a defensive tool to beat those monsters back, but I'd love to hear your thoughts in a follow-up piece. In any case, thank you for this! I intend to sleep a little better now.
By the way, I highly recommend the book “Prediction Machines,” which provides a precise explanation in standard economic terms for how AI will change things by decreasing the costs of machine prediction, incentivizing managers and workers to transform traditional inputs into traditional work as prediction problems, and thereby enhancing and increasing the value of its close complement, human judgment.
As long as AI is still mostly about learning from human-generated examples, there will always need to be human experts around whose work provides the necessary examples. And no matter how good the models get, new examples will forever be needed for the AI to stay current because society, culture, science, politics, and the professions are continually in flux.
Your answer pleased me very much and put me in a decidedly good mood. For the AI, irony will still be incomprehensible for a long time. Human humor is not necessarily GPT's thing either. You are certainly right that the use of AI has improved the skills of chess players. But what is troubling is that the strategic skills of generals and military commanders are also improving, further perfecting murder and manslaughter. Increasing intellectual performance is stupidly a thoroughly questionable proposition ...