Progress is not an ethical principle

“Humans have a long track record of wishful thinking and underestimating the risks of new breakthroughs. Commercial interests push technology as a new religion whose central article of faith is that more technology is always better. Web giants want to dazzle users into overestimating their AI tools’ utility, encouraging humanity to prematurely cede authority to them far beyond their competence. Entrepreneurial attitude and scientific curiosity have produced many of the modern era’s advances. But progress is not an ethical principle. The danger is not machines being treated like humans, but humans being treated like machines.”

The Guardian view on ChatGPT search: exploiting wishful thinking | Editorial
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/10/the-guardian-view-on-chatgpt-search-exploiting-wishful-thinking
via Instapaper

Beyond 1.5

“It’s been said before in this newsletter: the 1.5C target is toast. We’re already at 1.1C, and the pledges that were meant to keep us below 1.5C are not being met. Now comes news that those pledges probably won’t keep us below 1.5C anyway. // The answer, here, insofar as there is one? It’s about adaptation. This week also saw a report from the UK’s Climate Change Committee — which advises government on warming — that the UK is ‘chronically underspending’ when it comes to adaptation; investment of £10 billion a year is needed, said the report, to prepare for the uptick in storms, floods, and heatwaves that is coming. Also see mounting evidence for the effectiveness of direct cash transfers to poorer countries to help them adapt quickly to an imminent storm or flood. // In short, we need to continue our attempts to mitigate future climate change, while also doing more to adapt to the change that’s already unavoidable. That presents multiple challenges, but one is a challenge of collective psychology: can we accept that things are already quite bad, without giving up on our attempts to stop them getting even worse?”

New Week #110
https://nwsh.substack.com/p/new-week-110
via Instapaper

Preempting a Generative AI Monopoly | by Diane Coyle - Project Syndicate

“But the massive, immensely costly, and rapidly increasing computing power needed to train and maintain generative AI tools represents a substantial barrier to entry that could lead to market concentration. The potential for monopolization, together with the risk of abuse, underscores the urgent need for policymakers to consider the implications of this technological breakthrough.”

Preempting a Generative AI Monopoly | by Diane Coyle - Project Syndicate
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/preventing-tech-giants-from-monopolizing-artificial-intelligence-chatbots-by-diane-coyle-2023-02
via Instapaper

ChatGPT could make these jobs obsolete: ‘The wolf is at the door’

“Wall Street could see many jobs axed in coming years, as bots like ChatGPT continue to better themselves, Shi told The Post.

“I definitely think [it will impact] the trading side, but even [at] an investment bank, people [are] hired out of college and spend two, three years to work like robots and do Excel modeling — you can get AI to do that,” he explained. “Much, much faster.”

Shi is certain, however, that crucial financial and economic decisions will likely always be left in human hands, even if the data sheets are not.

Software engineering

Relatively simple software-design jobs are at risk.
Getty Images/Maskot
Website designers and engineers responsible for comparatively simple coding are at risk of being made obsolete, Hegde warns.

“I worry for such people. Now I can just ask ChatGPT to generate a website for me — any type of person whose routine job would be doing this for me is no longer needed.”

In essence, AI can draft the code — hand-tailored to a user’s request and parameters — to build sites and other pieces of IT.

The days of relatively uncomplicated software-design jobs will be a thing of the past by 2026 or sooner, Shi said.”

ChatGPT could make these jobs obsolete: ‘The wolf is at the door’
https://nypost.com/2023/01/25/chat-gpt-could-make-these-jobs-obsolete/
via Instapaper

AI Is Coming For Commercial Art Jobs. Can It Be Stopped?

“Robinson and Grubaugh recently interviewed renowned fine artist/illustrator Dave McKean, one of the earliest adopters of digital techniques back in the 90s, about this topic. “Why would anyone pay to have an artist design a book cover or album jacket when you can just type in a few words and get what you want?” said McKean. “This will feed an increasingly rapacious marketing department that wants to see 50 comps of everything, and now they can have unlimited comps. The financial imperative of that is inevitable.”

Holz strongly disagrees and believes the platforms will benefit artists, companies and society in the end. “I think that some people will try to cut artists out. They will try to make something similar at a lower cost, and I think they will fail in the market. I think the market will go towards higher quality, more creativity,” he said.”

AI Is Coming For Commercial Art Jobs. Can It Be Stopped?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalkowitz/2022/09/16/ai-is-coming-for-commercial-art-jobs-can-it-be-stopped/?sh=7b31ab054b05
via Instapaper

Google Search Has Nothing to Fear From ChatGPT

“ChatGPT is good at what it does — generating what appears to be knowledge in a conversational manner — but a search engine it is not. It responds to prompts like you might expect a really smart person to, even if it can’t directly answer your questions.

It makes some sense that Google might see chat, were it to be widely adopted as a search tool, as a threat to its business model. It’s much easier to incorporate advertisements into listed search results than into chatbot responses. If fewer people are doing conventional search, that could potentially have a serious effect on Google’s bottom line. But the real question here is: Can ChatGPT even be used to do Google-like searches?”

Google Search Has Nothing to Fear From ChatGPT
https://undark.org/2023/01/19/google-search-has-nothing-to-fear-from-chatgpt/
via Instapaper

ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative,' and 'nothing revolutionary', says Meta's chief AI scientist

“The ChatGPT program is a case less of scientific breakthroughs than it is an instance of decent engineering, said LeCun. He compared the program to IBM's Watson computer that competed in 2011 in the game show Jeopardy!, and entrepreneur Sebastian Thrun's self-driving vehicle that won DARPA's 2005 Grand Challenge. Thrun's award-winning tech "wasn't particularly innovative in terms of the underlying science," said LeCun, "it was just very well engineered."”

ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative,' and 'nothing revolutionary', says Meta's chief AI scientist
https://www.zdnet.com/article/chatgpt-is-not-particularly-innovative-and-nothing-revolutionary-says-metas-chief-ai-scientist/
via Instapaper

Davos Still Sucks

“Well. I should jolly well hope so. Tharoor notes attendees’ concerns this year: “war, climate catastrophe, energy price chaos, inflation, epidemics of hunger and disease, political instability and widening inequity.”

These are serious issues. They’re also issues that many of the corporations bankrolling the World Economic Forum have contributed to, with abandon. They’re issues they have lobbied governments to keep from addressing rigorously—for fear strong policies will interfere with their business models.”

Davos Still Sucks
https://newrepublic.com/post/170068/davos-2023-world-economic-forum-still-sucks
via Instapaper

Opinion | We asked an AI bot hundreds of questions. Here’s what we learned.

“Humans today are still in control. We have the ability to decide what systems to build, and to shape the future in which we want to live. Ultimately, unleashing the full potential of the technology that appears tantalizingly close to our grasp comes down to this: What do we as a species hope to gain from artificial intelligence, and — perhaps more important — what are we willing to give up?”

Opinion | We asked an AI bot hundreds of questions. Here’s what we learned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/interactive/2022/chatgpt-questions-predictions-ethics/
via Instapaper