|
Top-level
@gerrymcgovern @gedeonm You could be right. No doubt the output of AI will be a mixed bag. Just a hunch: I suspect the good will outweigh the (notable and significant) bad. For example, in a few years, every major scientific discovery will likely be found by AI. I still believe that AI will be an enormous benefit to the art community, even though they don’t believe it yet. And that AI itself will be able to mitigate some of its bad outputs. The trajectory of this story is unknown 3 comments
@Gregmaletic @gerrymcgovern @gedeonm second, I would ask: if we propose to be using that much compute for scientific discoveries, with the afformentioned impact consequences: who decides on what is being researched? Who ensures accessability to results and elevation of *human* research? We already have issues with researchers from the global south lacking in plain *presence* and *accessability* in the wider research community, so what epistemological practice issue are you solving with "AI"? I used to be a tech evangelist. But 75% of the damage we've done to our environment happened in the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years, we've had the Digital Revolution. So, either digital did nothing to stop the incredible damage done, or else digital was an accelerant of that damage. Digital is a fire starter. |
Gregory's Server
@Gregmaletic @gerrymcgovern @gedeonm I *strongly* doubt that significant discoveries will be made by "AI" personally, given the contemporary technology of large language models has notable issues with bias, repetitiveness, and "smoothing out" statistically unlikely expressions of ideas into generica.
Nothing substantial in the contemporary "state of the art text thinker" indicates they're reasoning engines that can be applied to any knowledge base - which is what you would *actually* need.