Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If AI is able to do boring repetitive jobs and open up more time for people to do things that are fulfilling to them that would definitely be a pro. The Con would be if more jobs were opened but most of the profits from AI went to the Upper Class causing a huge income inequality.
Bloomberg tells me big pharma believes use of AI can shave time off the development process and find new cures.
Excerpts:
- Artificial intelligence can shave years off the development process for new drugs—and Big Pharma is investing big.
- What’s happening: Pharma companies globally are embracing AI by striking deals with computer-savvy startups and adding more data scientists of their own. They hope to cut costs and speed up time to market.
- Why it matters: Morgan Stanley estimates that over the next decade, the use of AI in early-stage drug development may translate into an additional 50 novel therapies worth more than $50 billion in sales.
I hope someone is using AI to find cures without drugs? If we feed AI all the data about human health and biology into AI, I would think it would be able to do so sometimes.
And this is one of the problems. Those that will want to keep certain data from AI. Or not even ask AI questions that some don't want answers to that are inconvenient.
AI is at the end of a long list of undelivered tech promises:
Cryptocurrency
Metaverse
Self driving cars
Electric cars
5G
I could keep going. I think AI has more substance than the others, but the trend so far is hype exceeds delivery. I expect the same to be true of AI here. The capability isn't quite there for the doomsday scenarios or for the game changing upsides. The realistic scenario is it gradually gets implemented from the bottom up as a add on to our existing framework. In 30 years it's a core of technology, but not in 3.
I think contemporary culture is so fixated on the industrial revolution and .com period that people expect this to be the norm of change rather than boosts.
Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings today on regulating AI. One suggestion talked about between Prof Gary Marcus and Dick Durbin (D) is the need for an international AI regulation agency. To regulate AI worldwide.
I hope someone is using AI to find cures without drugs? If we feed AI all the data about human health and biology into AI, I would think it would be able to do so sometimes.
And this is one of the problems. Those that will want to keep certain data from AI. Or not even ask AI questions that some don't want answers to that are inconvenient.
Well.. The reason people want to keep certain things from AI is how it's turned out in the past.
While medical research might be a fine use for it.. I, for one, certainly wouldn't want it having the ability to launch nukes.
AI at this moment, to me, is scary as hell pending on the application. Hey, someone wants to put it in and replace drive thru workers? Ok.. No problem. What's the worst that could happen? I get cheese on my chicken sandwich that I don't want? While that would be supremely annoying, it's not the end of the world.
A learning AI that can launch nukes? Yes.. That's scary as hell.
AI with human oversight.. Concerns me less. it's the ones unleashed on the world with little to no restrictions that really worry me.
And it's not just nukes.. I mean, imagine AI directing emergency responses or something. Where it might decide that sending resources that would save 50 people from death wasn't cost effective or something.
Regardless.. AI is The Next Big Thing. Supplanting 3D printing, I'd wager.
I suppose the gist of this is.. "Care must be taken". Not sure how much regulation there should be.. But.. This stuff can't be used completely willy-nilly.
AI can be great for doing what humans can't or won't do, however, this can lead to problems down the line if not handled properly. In particular, what happens with all the people whose jobs get automated? If it happens slowly, the economy may be able to adjust by creating new demand, but only up to a point. Once the rate of automation gets aggressive, then there is a real danger of the benefits flowing primarily to the wealthy few while many working and middle class people are left unemployed. I am concerned that there won't be sufficient political will for a UBI until a lot of damage has already been done and society is further destabilized by the increased level of economic inequality.
A second concern that I have is whether companies will be required to disclose what is done by humans and what is done by machines. I am also not too optimistic about this due to the companies' extreme lobbying power. Thus consumers may be deceived into buying goods/services with a different set of strengths and weaknesses than what they are expecting, including susceptibility to an adversarial attack.
It will definitely take over jobs wise but i can't see AI wanting to take over.Its a machine even if self-aware why is it assumed it will immediately go into survival mode and then want to dominate.That is certainly what a human would do were afraid it will think and act just like us.That survival instinct and emotions are in life but not sure it would be there for AI.The AI would have to know and worry about dying to know the survival instinct.
We shouldn't talk AI today as truly sentient AI. It is simply automation to a high degree. True AI is when it can make decisions and adapt to new knowledge and understand how to utilize it. The current examples of AI is only capable of arranging and filter information but it has no analytical ability. It is purely automation. Granted a lot of jobs today can easily be replaced by current AI tech but it won't replace engineers, scientists, and hands on labor. It can help answer phones and tell you information and figure out bugs in your code and help you do math or write an essay. But it's not gonna replace human intellect anytime.
The flaws of AI is that it is only as smart as the person who programmed and the person who uses it.
Until a certain point.
Whereas AI researchers once spoke of “designing” AIs, they now speak of “steering” them. And even our ability to steer is slipping out of our grasp as we let AIs teach themselves and increasingly act in ways that even their creators do not fully understand. In advanced artificial neural networks, we understand the inputs that go into the system, but the output emerges from a “black box” with a decision-making process largely indecipherable to humans.
Skeptics of AI risks often ask, “Couldn’t we just turn the AI off?” There are a variety of practical challenges here. The AI could be under the control of a different nation or a bad actor. Or AIs could be integrated into vital infrastructure, like power grids or the internet. When embedded into these critical systems, the cost of disabling them may prove too high for us to accept since we would become dependent on them. AIs could become embedded in our world in ways that we can’t easily reverse.
It will definitely take over jobs wise but i can't see AI wanting to take over.
Who's going to tell AI what to do?
AI doesn't do anything until a human tells it to do something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
