"I am a science-fiction writer, which means that my job is to make up futuristic parables about our current techno-social arrangements to interrogate not just what a gadget does, but who it does it for, and who it does it to. What I do not do is predict the future. No one can predict the future, which is a good thing, since if the future were predictable, that would mean we couldn't change it."
"Then there are science-fiction fans who believe that they are reading the future. A depressing number of those people appear to have become AI bros. These guys can't shut up about the day that their spicy autocomplete machine will wake up and turn us all into paperclips has led many confused journalists and conference organizers to try to get me to comment on the future of AI."
Science-fiction crafts futuristic parables to interrogate how current techno-social arrangements allocate benefits and harms. Predicting the future is impossible and undesirable because predictability would preclude change. Many readers and some peers conflate speculative narrative with prophecy and expect accurate forecasts. A subset of fans have become convinced that fictional scenarios reveal imminent AI awakenings, fueling alarmism. Journalists and conference organizers frequently solicit predictions about AI futures. Past interactions with fervent crypto advocates demonstrate how debates can become hostile and unproductive. Effective AI criticism should target the most harmful aspects of AI. Automation theory distinguishes centaurs—people assisted by machines—from reverse centaurs—humans serving as machine bodies.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]