|
|
|
|
|
|
by jonmc12
1918 days ago
|
|
|
I think the foundation of the argument about the application and utility of AI needs to go deeper. A good starting point might be to address the arguments that Arvind Narayanan brings up in "How to recognize AI snake oil"[1]. ie: - "Much of what’s being sold as 'AI' today is snake oil — it does not and cannot work."
- "AI excels at some tasks, but can’t predict social outcomes."
The way that AI "joins the workplace" matters a lot to discuss the reciprocal policy. AI progress in certain domains has been amazing, while other domains may require a philosophically different approach to leverage computation and intelligence for true productivity gains.[1] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/talks/MIT-STS-AI-snake... |
|
|