Programming is beautiful, really! It’s like a meeting point between that technology-driven dopamine fix geeks get and the same dopamine fix artists get when inspiration hits them, accounting for what is essentially a double-dose of dopamine. Dopamine that comes from a couple of constructive sources such as these can only be good for you and is something that should definitely be pursued.
We start to venture into some scary territory though when we think about the development trajectory of Artificial Intelligence, expressed via many different conduits, one of which is indeed Deep Learning. This is when the discussion goes beyond the “robots are coming for our jobs” debate, justifiably making for some scary thoughts, but in my specific case I get rather excited about it.
The excitement likely stems from the fact that I’m personally thinking about it from a positive point of view, whereas those who are visibly worried about the possibilities around the development of AI are justifiably imagining what such power could be used for if it falls into the wrong hands.
The real worry about AI is exactly who controls it though and not necessarily what it’s often misrepresented to have the ability to achieve.
What artificial intelligence really is
This has programmers all over the world divided, including some of the greatest minds in the tech industry, that of course being exactly what AI is. For those with some programming background, the understanding is that underneath the AI hood are nothing but some “if-else” statements which are structured in such a way that the AI medium under deployment simulates real intelligence, which is why it’s called Artificial Intelligence.
AI is not the popularised “rise of the machines,” where robots develop consciousness and rise up.
AIs positive applications
AIs positive applications are aplenty, including doing those boring, uninspiring and repetitive jobs humans hate to do without getting tired, sick or unmotivated. Basically AI gives us the opportunity to rediscover and channel our creativity, so it can only be a good thing if a machine can do the job that human beings could do, much better than they could.
Accounting for the possible destructive applications
In light of what AI really is, what it can do and what it can’t do, there’s definitely cause for concern as far as its possible negative applications. As far as accounting for these possible negative applications though, it’s simply a matter of re-organising the manner through which we handle issues such as legal jurisdiction, liability and culpability. It’s probably just a matter of needing to re-align the jargon used to define and identify the various parties which form part of a legal process. For instance, when seeking some compensation from an entity which might very well be attributed to being under the legal liability of some AI technology, a Portland personal injury lawyer cannot really go after some robot, can they? Rather, they would have to commence legal proceedings against the creators, owners or operators of those “robots,” or whatever mechanism or medium through which the AI is facilitated.
