Always remember that "better" means "more profitable" to the uber rich. And that's all it means. Not more effective, not more beautiful, not a benefit to the world, not even necessarily true ... just more profitable.
Serious question - has anything of benefit to humanity ever come out of the World Economic Forum? I don't know the answer, but it strikes me as an event where self-important people get together to show off.
As for:
“It is my guess that by 2026 or 2027, we will have AI systems that are broadly better than almost all humans at almost all things.”
This is horseshit. This is less than 2 years away! I expect AI to get better, but it will never, ever be anything like this. These technologists are full of shit and I bet some of them know it.
"Has anything of benefit to humanity ever come out of the World Economic Forum?" - this is a very worthwhile question to ask, lots of valuable business relationships I am sure, societal benefits? Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has done a study 🤔
Health Psychology (textbook name), cdn edition. It talks about the research on how hospitals have been operating as businesses, and how it’s led to things like nurse/dr burnout and therefore reduced patient care/worsened outcomes, all because it considers business first.
So…yes, the aspect of business vs societal effects has been studied.
"The ‘Technology In The World’ panel was filled with AI enthusiasts who are uniformly optimistic about the future of this and every other technology because their careers, income and equity stakes depend on it. But it is important that we invite skeptics on to panels too, not to be Debbie Downers but to provide much-needed balance.
This, I presume, was the role of moderator Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic who, midway through the panel commented, “This is an optimistic panel so let me try to change the mood a bit if possible”, and was greeted with an audible sigh from President and Chief Investment Officer of Alphabet & Google, Ruth Porat, before going on to ask an inconvenient question about the impact of AI and data centres on climate change. She clearly thinks skepticism of any kind is unwarranted but when Amoedi makes claims like the one below they NEED to be challenged:
"I think a doubling of the human life span is not at all crazy and then, if AI is able to accelerate that, we may be able to get that in five to ten years."
Sure Amoedi, whatever, but my immediate follow up question would be; what are we going to do for 180 years if AI can do EVERYTHING better than us? How are we going to support ourselves because sure-as-shit no one is going pay for us to to sit and "make art" all day or whatever it is these people assume we want to do, which is apparently completely different to what they want to do, which is to keep working despite all being millionaires many times over."
Being human requires a degree of vulnerability that most people are, understandably, uncomfortable with so it's going to take time to get the message across, even more so in Asia where I live and work - keep at it!
I agree. I feel as though the spiritual void has been filled with commerce and purpose realigned to shareholder value. I have no desire to see any rise in religion but I'd like to see a lot more introspection, cooperation and meditation. Thank for the comment.
Always remember that "better" means "more profitable" to the uber rich. And that's all it means. Not more effective, not more beautiful, not a benefit to the world, not even necessarily true ... just more profitable.
💯
The silver lining is that AI will be better at understanding what it means to be human than these tech creeps.
That's a weird irony, right? When AI employees sack their own boss for being an inhumane psychopath!!
Love the optimism Anthony, thanks for the comment!
Serious question - has anything of benefit to humanity ever come out of the World Economic Forum? I don't know the answer, but it strikes me as an event where self-important people get together to show off.
As for:
“It is my guess that by 2026 or 2027, we will have AI systems that are broadly better than almost all humans at almost all things.”
This is horseshit. This is less than 2 years away! I expect AI to get better, but it will never, ever be anything like this. These technologists are full of shit and I bet some of them know it.
"Has anything of benefit to humanity ever come out of the World Economic Forum?" - this is a very worthwhile question to ask, lots of valuable business relationships I am sure, societal benefits? Hmmm, I wonder if anyone has done a study 🤔
Health Psychology (textbook name), cdn edition. It talks about the research on how hospitals have been operating as businesses, and how it’s led to things like nurse/dr burnout and therefore reduced patient care/worsened outcomes, all because it considers business first.
So…yes, the aspect of business vs societal effects has been studied.
Another great consideration, Neal! Yeah, define “better” …,
AI sucks…but some things are still safe I guess 😅:
Good said:
"The ‘Technology In The World’ panel was filled with AI enthusiasts who are uniformly optimistic about the future of this and every other technology because their careers, income and equity stakes depend on it. But it is important that we invite skeptics on to panels too, not to be Debbie Downers but to provide much-needed balance.
This, I presume, was the role of moderator Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic who, midway through the panel commented, “This is an optimistic panel so let me try to change the mood a bit if possible”, and was greeted with an audible sigh from President and Chief Investment Officer of Alphabet & Google, Ruth Porat, before going on to ask an inconvenient question about the impact of AI and data centres on climate change. She clearly thinks skepticism of any kind is unwarranted but when Amoedi makes claims like the one below they NEED to be challenged:
"I think a doubling of the human life span is not at all crazy and then, if AI is able to accelerate that, we may be able to get that in five to ten years."
Sure Amoedi, whatever, but my immediate follow up question would be; what are we going to do for 180 years if AI can do EVERYTHING better than us? How are we going to support ourselves because sure-as-shit no one is going pay for us to to sit and "make art" all day or whatever it is these people assume we want to do, which is apparently completely different to what they want to do, which is to keep working despite all being millionaires many times over."
Thanks for the mention Neal! Love this post.
Thanks so much Graham, I appreciate it and keep up the great reporting.
Can’t wait to read why being human will make your brands shine. I have been shouting the headline sentiment at anyone who will listen.
Being human requires a degree of vulnerability that most people are, understandably, uncomfortable with so it's going to take time to get the message across, even more so in Asia where I live and work - keep at it!
The power of this tech needs to be evenly distributed if we are to have a chance.
I agree. I feel as though the spiritual void has been filled with commerce and purpose realigned to shareholder value. I have no desire to see any rise in religion but I'd like to see a lot more introspection, cooperation and meditation. Thank for the comment.