Berengaria’s Reviews > Die Rettung der Arbeit > Status Update

One cannot "steer" a revolution and the attempt is ultimately bound to fail. What *can* be done, *will* be done one day. Ethics and consequences be damned.

Yesterday, I was in a video conference in which one of Europe's top tech managers talked about digital ethics and AI. She presented my employer's most fundamental approach to that, which boils down to "The dignity of man is inviolable". One of the participants immediately stated that sounded all fine and well but that he failed to see how our company could thrive under such a rigid constraint...

Even without greed, ulterior motives, and other factors being taken into account, we, as humans, push the technological boundaries faster than ethics can evolve and the speed of development is ever-increasing. The day *will* come when we realise that what some feared, has already happened but we were too slow to notice.

Fasten your seatbelts; this is going to be a wild ride soon.

Wulf wrote: "One cannot "steer" a revolution"

I'm only stating what's in the book. This time in chapter 3. Herzog would term you an "AI pessimist". 😉

I agree with you. I have little trust in human intelligence and forethought either.

If this was happening slower -- as some important people in the field want it to - then perhaps laws and regulations could keep up and create what Herzog is calling for. That IS within the realm of possibility. It seems, however, that AI optimists/business want to take the original Facebook motto as their battle cry and "move fast and break things" simply because they can.

Are we sure this is a real revolution, though? Or it merely an acceleration of what was already there, making it impossible not to see it? That is: business interests regulating governments and dictating policy, not governments regulating business and dictating their policy.

This is a troubling issue, Berengaria. One of those phenomena that makes me feel like a cranky old person resenting new developments. Although I suppose “apprehensive” is a better word to describe my thoughts on this one.

Barbara K. wrote: "This is a troubling issue, Berengaria. One of those phenomena that makes me feel like a cranky old person resenting new developments. Although I suppose “apprehensive” is a better word to describe ..."

Very true. I think the people who say we have to study the Industrial Revolution to understand what's happening (again) today and avoid the mistakes made then are right on the money. But will we? That's the question.

I'm more in the middle of the road: The "wild ride" I expect will very likely be shocking for some, frightening for others, apprehension-inducing for many. And yet, wild rides tend to be exhilarating, exciting and, again in the metaphorical sense, driving humanity onwards. I'm both scared and I cannot wait to see where this propels us to! (And, of course, I'm working with AI, too, every day.)

Some jobs will cease to exist because AI is simply better at it - and new ones will come and ease individual burdens: Who needs a cartwright (Stellmacher) today - but there are many much-needed car mechanics (and yet too few if one needs one!).
There will be downsides, true, but ultimately, we will get things into some kind of order. This might be a different order from what we're used to (which, again, is understandably scary) but different is inherently neither good nor bad.

Personally, I believe people *are* already doing the comparisons with the Industrial Revolution - and without even the shadow of a doubt they will entirely miss the mark *and* the time to publish their ideas. And even if they don't fail: They might be heard but not listened to.

I think, a practical approach to AI is what is happening, and by mistakes as much as by successes, we will keep the dangers in check without sacrificing too many potential benefits.