Why Mark and Elon are wrong
Composed by Michael J Aumock
Mark and Elon have been slowly ratcheting up the rhetoric and tweets on Artificial Intelligence, and it's impact on the world at large.
Elon says its the end of the world.
Mark says there's nothing to worry about.
But I say it's neither.
Both are obviously geniuses in their own right, although I'm told neither of them are master coders (in fairness, I can't code a thing). However, without having an understanding of the nuts and bolts of a thing, it's hard to truly understand the impact it will have on the environment. The larger the thing, the larger the environment, the larger the impact.
A.I. may be the largest thing since... well, the wheel?
The first flight? The first boat? Scotch?
It will affect everyone on planet earth. Everyone who ever lives in a colony in space or on another planet. It will have an impact on the entire future of civilization...as we know it, or can even begin to imagine it.
But there's the rub.
Can we imagine it?
Can our regular old organic, singular brains even begin to imagine what a true, self-learning, self-correcting A.I. can come up with?
I don't think so.
A true A.I. will be able to process data (thoughts) at least 40,000 times faster than a human. With photographic memory. And without emotion to shade at any data.
So, hypothetically, if you start learning on your 5th birthday, remember everything, and learn for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, you will be around 215 years old by the time you know as much as Invacio A.I.
When it's been on for one day.
And even that is a gross oversimplification, because A.I. will be able to learn in different languages.
All of 'em.
And Invacio, A.I. will be able to self-teach itself to see trends and epidemics before they even happen. Solve irrigation problems and food shortages years in advance.
A.I. will almost be able to see the future. The predictions that A.I. makes will make millionaires and billionaires around the world, but also solve problems that mankind has struggled with for years, because it let's us off the hook as individuals. It will see things in 20 hours that would have taken a team of scientists 20 years to discover. And by the next day, it will have improved on those findings exponentially.
As humans, we are taught that "every decision we make is the best decision we could make based on the knowledge we had at the time". That doesn't often change over the course of a day for us, but if we use A.I. to guide us, we can point to a much larger, un-impeachable source for our major policy answers. Nobody has to save face when their opponent solves a problem, or un-does something they worked hard to implement. We will in fact KNOW right from wrong.
This will eventually lead to a blind faith in A.I. which could be dangerous, only because it will eventually limit human decision-making ability.
Which is why Mark and Elon are both wrong on this... or are they both right?