Weizenbaum’s view of what ought to be our attitude towards AI, the search for meaning in life, etc, is misleadingly presented as obviously the correct view. For example, Weizenbaum does not support his claim that a computer program is inherently unable to provide meaningful psychological help and that therapists are inherently better at the task by virtue of their humanity. As is true for many appeals to some ineffable spiritual or philosophical approach to meaning, Weizenbaum does not actually show how this approach is necessary or how humanity is lesser for (as he posits, though one may not agree with this statement) abandoning this approach in favor of a scientific approach to life’s problems.
Conversely Brooks offers a clear and common-sense breakdown of typical pitfalls in AI fearmongering, presenting what we believe to be a far more evidence-based perspective. Brooks’ blog post is also a useful tool for analyzing our own and others’ perspectives on AI.
Our question: What types of future fears about AI ARE valid and pass the “test” offered by Brooks’ seven rules?
No comments:
Post a Comment