Digital Critical Theory

Who owns your data?

While it is good that some people are waking up to the potential problems of AI for society, the ideas on regulating AI in this opinion piece are largely worthless because the author still thinks of AI as a tool owned and controlled by humans.  But the very definition of a true AI is that it is autonomous--and as autonomous entities, there’s no reason to expect them to follow human morality or laws.  It’s idiotic to think that applying a few general “laws” to the “programming” of AI’s would work, since it is not possible (for humans, at least) to foresee the outcomes of such complex programming interactions.  It would take another AI (many AI’s) to control the whole process.  

Thus, while applying the same laws to AI’s as to humans is, at first glance, sensible, how would those laws be implemented and enforced at a global level, without continually relying on more powerful AI’s (AI gods) to even track potential outcomes, much less enforce rules on them?   

I always love it when someone who describes himself as “a best-selling author & keynote speaker on business, technology and big data” feels free to opine about what does, or might, work well in the classroom.  Cause, after all, anyone can teach, right?  That must be why there have always been so many great teachers.  And thus, writing algorithms to do (or wait, to provide support for!) what good teachers do will be a real snap, yes?

To be fair, most of the points the author of this short piece makes are fairly reasonable in themselves.  It’s what he doesn’t say that is galling:  i.e., he makes no mention of any financial considerations underlying these issues.  You can, of course, still see the EdTech entrepreneur’s brain turning between the lines here (far less rapidly than an AI brain, of course--could we please think seriously about replacing these people with AI’s?  I frankly think they would much more of a breeze to algorithmize than good teachers):  EdTech thinks:  Oh Yea! profits from paying fewer teachers less money (like teacher’s aide sorts of money) and we can still claim students will benefit.  (Note, of course, that there’s no actual data to support these assumptions.)

Yeah, and what jobs will you be training these students to do?  To be best-selling authors and keynote speakers on business, technology, and big data?  Future entrepreneurs?  Ah. No doubt that’s the key to solving our educational and technological issues.  

Remember the old jokes about replacing light bulbs?  

Duh.    

Sample quote:  “ . . . the rise of driverless cars and trucks is just a start. New AI techniques are poised to reinvent everything from manufacturing to healthcare to Wall Street.”

Love the MIT economist who thinks more human entrepreneurship will somehow “solve” this problem.  First, I’m betting an AI could be written right now (and perhaps already has been) that could be a better entrepreneur than most human beings.  Second, who exactly would these entrepreneurs be selling their goods and services to?  Other entrepreneurs?  That can only lead to a lot of failed entrepreneurs.  

Interesting historical survey.