RE: Personal Preference Bot Nets and The Quantification of Intention
"It's just that if a task can be automated it should be" - This is the attitude which really scares the bejesus out of me. Just because something can be done, really doesn't mean it should be done. I can burn my house down, but it wouldn't be a good idea.
When creating a new technology it is no longer enough to just do it because you can, people need to also consider whether or not its a good idea (and if there are reasons why its not, whether there is any mitigation against that).
Your first example is not valid. A TV remote automates a dull repetitive task and does so in the moment. It is a tool not dissimilar from a hammer. A bot which makes decisions on your behalf rather than just doing your direct will is a totally different matter. I am also disappointed by your use of your grandfather to paint an implicit ad hominem attack against me as being a relic of a bygone era with no valid argument to be made today.
Your second example is more interesting and is indeed less offensive to my sensibilities than I had imagined, but at the same time doesn't include the use of AI as mentioned in the article. The introduction of AI I would imagine means something along the lines of noticing than a person acts like they prefer email and then using that information without the person specifically requesting to only receive email. I find this concerning mainly because it takes a one dimensional view of reality and then traps people within that bubble whilst also failing to know about the innevitable exceptions. For example, maybe bob prefers people to email him because he tends to get more details in an email than an SMS - your system ruins this. Maybe he generally what he really likes it to receive a response in the format he sent in - so one day he sends an SMS but your system has already put him in the email pigeon hole so he gets an email response. I could go on for a long time but I'll stop there.
@dcsignal First off allow me to apologize. There literally was no intent on my part to offend or to offer an ad hominem in any form. This is mature discourse.
The example was intended to convey that what at one time seemed like something that humans "ought" to be doing, is now something that we do infact rely on technology for.
Automation of dull repetitive tasks is a synonym for AI. It's just the degree of inference that really makes the difference.
Look forget the word AI in any of this. It paints too broad of a swath and frankly we'll never have AI because we keep moving the goal post.
I have a phone and I'm sending you a message. You have a phone and your phone is aware that you are presently at work. Instead of "i'll text you".
I just decide I'm going to send you a message and let the phones sort out the details.
The only thing that is happening is that when it comes time for message delivery, your phone tells my phone "He's in a meeting right now, would you like his email address instead?"
What you are automating away here is the receptionist who would be doing this task. You don't need to be shoehorned in and frankly if people like dana and myself are doing our jobs correctly you should never ever feel that way.
Just like you used to program your phone with speed dial settings, and keep a Rolodex for less frequent numbers. You now have a contact list built into your phone. You already have the ability to put your phone on meeting mode and in most cases it will direct calls to voicemail automatically. So you tell your phone, "Hey I'm in a meeting now". Your phone then reports back to my phone the way that you would prefer to be reached.
It's not just that no one is forcing it on you. It's that it should be at least as natural a tool to use as another human being. That's the I in AI here. You're literally surrounded by it. Your microwave has a popcorn button right now. But really good microwaves could scan the UPC as you're putting in the bag and find out what the correct settings are to pop your popcorn to optimal efficiency. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to stop it on your own though.
@dana-edwards I do wonder if maybe dropping the term AI and using more precise terms might be in order. Automated Assistant. Independent agent system, support vector machine, software based remote controller, might help people digest these topics easier without being biased because of the movie view.
No problem, I understand...you want to suggest that this is just another quantitative evolution of technology and there is no more reason to oppose it than there would have been for any other technology. Personally I see the potential in AI for the automation of decisions rather than actions, which to me is not a quantitative but a qualitative difference.
There is good evidence that we are already suffering from adopting technologies indiscriminately, just because we can and because they are more advanced technologically we assume they must be better. For example, worker productivity in industrialized nations has gone down dramatically, and continues to go down every year. The latest thinking is that this is because businesses bring in new tech which takes ages to learn, break often, last a few years before a new system comes out and its obsolete, and only offers small advantages which do not make up for all this. I am not against technology any more than I'm against food, but I think we should be more discerning in the way that we are with what we choose to eat.
The example you give seems good, but I don't see how that uses AI. I suspect that what the post is about really does use AI which does make it a different thing - but I wouldn't suggest anybody drop the AI term because most people are fine with it and cynics like me will only think you are trying to hide something. ;P