Three things every leader must do to hold the line against AI decision making
The leaders who keep their edge will be the ones who resist the temptation to hand over judgments to machines.
mint AI·
CEA Anantha Nageswaran feels that artificial intelligence raises the value of each working professional rather than replacing them. Says, “Our goal should be to use machines so that our people are freed to do more of what only people can do.”
Read full articleThe leaders who keep their edge will be the ones who resist the temptation to hand over judgments to machines.
What if the real disruption in AI isn’t that machines are becoming more capable but that we’re quietly redefining work in ways that make humans less so? It’s an uncomfortable question. But it sits at the center of nearly every conversation about productivity, automation and the future of work. Across industries, work is increasingly framed in terms machines can understand: outputs, efficiency gains, [...] The post Understanding humans’ value in work appeared first on SAS Blogs.
New studies suggest consciousness can't be judged solely by behavior, whether it's a chatbot discussing philosophy or a bee searching for nectar. Researchers are increasingly focusing on the internal mechanisms of brains and computers, concluding that today's AI is likely not conscious while leaving open the possibility for both conscious insects and future machines.
Readers respond to an article by Nesrine Malik on what we lose when we trust machines over humans Nesrine Malik is right to worry about the effect that AI may have on writing (AI is devoid of meaning and humanity. That’s why its vapid voice suits this political moment, 1 June). The examples she cites of fabricated quotations and unreliable research should concern anyone who values truth and public trust. However, I suspect the deeper problem is not AI’s bland prose but its relationship to evidence. The writers caught out by false quotations were often not trying to deceive. They believed that they were using AI as a research aid while retaining editorial control. Yet somehow, fiction entered the factual record. The issue was not laziness but misplaced confidence in a system that can produce plausible reconstructions without distinguishing between what was observed, inferred or simply generated. Continue reading...
For ease and speed, we are degrading our ability to connect and to organise our societies. We must assert our trust in humans over machines Here is a nightmare scenario for you. You are writing a book about how AI reshapes reality. You start using it as a research partner, confident that you are applying the right hygiene by not letting it actually write a sentence of the book. You think you’ll be careful, you will double check everything. And then your book comes out and it appears that it includes more than a half dozen misattributed or fake quotes. Steven Rosenbaum, the unfortunate writer, acknowledged that sometimes the output of AI was “staggeringly wrong”, but still, errors crept in. There are others. A Commonwealth prize-winning short story became engulfed in claims that it carried the hallmarks of AI. And every time I see a story of a journalist caught out by fake AI quotes during research, I cross myself – there but for the grace of God go I. But to make sure it is not left up
Officials push for machines to make autonomous decisions on targets in exceptional circumstances
The Vatican’s “Magnifica Humanitas” warns about the concentration of AI power among tech elites and argues that machines can never replace human morality or consciousness.
Exercising our own judgment when it comes to quality is something we should not outsource to machines