How about if Minnesota leads the way on AI regulation?
Most of the citizenry really does not want artificial “intelligence” shoved up our butts.
By contrast, U.S. adults as a whole – whose concerns over AI have grown since 2021 – are more inclined than experts to say they’re more concerned than excited (51% vs. 15% among experts)…
The public is far more likely to think AI will harm them (43%) than benefit them (24%). Still, one-third say they’re unsure.
Public optimism is low regarding AI’s impact on work. While 73% of AI experts surveyed say AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on how people do their jobs over the next 20 years, that share drops to 23% among U.S. adults.
(Pew Research)
You may have noticed that there haven’t been any really massive tech breakthroughs probably since cell phones. Yes, things keep getting fancier. And some firms continue to maintain mega-profits and valuations, because of their market strangleholds and as huge beneficiaries of public spending, especially with the military. As far as I’m concerned, what’s really going on with the AI so-called “boom” is that the tech broligarchy is increasingly desperate for a new river of gold to start cascading in, before the real crash comes. But I digress.
Some states are regulating, a little. This has an interactive map, and it’s interesting to check out. (For example, the reason Tennessee is a dot of orange where it is is largely because of the ELVIS Act, which prevents people from trying to duplicate human voices and passing it off as “real.”) On the whole, though, talk about a patchwork. But nobody has done anything really comprehensive that I know of.
My suggestion – and I’m sure plenty of people have made it as well – is that all AI use must be clearly indicated. That’s so that people can boycott if they choose, refuse to deal with AI instead of real people when they call for doctor appointments, etc., etc. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask, I think, though I do get that there could be issues with privacy, and with the big gray area between what’s AI and what isn’t. (For example, since I googled a couple of things while writing this I suppose purists might claim it’s AI.) It would be a solid start.
If the tech bros in general don’t have the class and integrity to be upfront about their AI products – and based on their past and present behavior I see little to no reason to believe that all that many of them do – someone else is going to have to do that for them. Namely, us.
Comment from Joe Musich: First off AI is a total misdirect. And so “enhanced intelligence” or any other synonyms near in intent to in my opinion deceive. It is a concept that has a direct line right right back to Edward Bernays. It is nothing more than computer assisted creation. I accentuate “assisted.” Years ago I bought a Commodore 64. In an effort to learn code I attempted to create a program that could perform the basic opened ended questions a therapist might answer someone on the couch into moving the couch dweller to their own self discovery. Grand plan hey. I could see how it might work at a certain level. But R2D2 was not someone who could slip into side conversation easily if at all. The question was would it be worth it if it could ? How much does anyone use a slide rule anymore ? Humans have created other tools to assist themselves. The tools are not artificial intelligence. They are only tools. I am always reminded on the opening scene of 2001 A Space Odyssey where the hominid uses the jaw bone as a weapon. That is our choice. AI if it insisted we call it that is nothing more than CA computer assistance. The tech boys you refer to are using language as Noam Chomsky pointed out can be done to manipulate. We need to begin the counterpoint to the bullshite by insisting that terms are defined clearly and understood by all. Otherwise AI is so much bitcoin.
Thanks for your feedback. If we like what you have to say, it may appear in a future post of reader reactions.