[davidashe]

Premise of the article is roughly: if all this litigation continues, the AI industry could collapse.

Serious naive question: How would that not be a desirable outcome for society? “AI” is becoming a scourge.

AI’s value-add that we truly need is just detecting cancer right? Obviously I don’t want anyone to die from cancer if they could be saved. But AI in cancer detection is a detection-rate booster: cancer can be detected without it. A non-AI process could try to recover some of the lost accuracy.

Weigh this against the misinformation potential of chatGPT, deepfake video fraud, discriminatory bias in ML model output, the surveillance potential of image recognition, addictive social media, the essential inscrutability of model output… (i could go on, but the research & reporting on AI as we have wielded it is voluminous)

So if litigation kills AI, isn’t that cause for celebration, on-balance?

Or shit, can’t we just legislate easier usage regulation for lifesaving medical data, so we can keep the cancer detection use cases and let the rest of the AI gold rush die?