Public trust in AI is sinking across the board
axios.com
Trust in AI technology and the companies that develop it is dropping, in both the U.S. and around the world, according to new data from Edelman shared first with Axios.
Why it matters: The move comes as regulators around the world are deciding what rules should apply to the fast-growing industry. "Trust is the currency of the AI era, yet, as it stands, our innovation account is dangerously overdrawn," Edelman global technology chair Justin Westcott told Axios in an email. "Companies must move beyond the mere mechanics of AI to address its true cost and value — the 'why' and 'for whom.'"
You are viewing a single comment
I mean, the thing we call "AI" now-a-days is basically just a spell-checker on steroids. There's nothing to really to trust or distrust about the tool specifically. It can be used in stupid or nefarious ways, but so can anything else.
Took a look and the article title is misleading. It says nothing about trust in the technology and only talks about not trusting companies collecting our data. So really nothing new.
Personally I want to use the tech more, but I get nervous that it's going to bullshit me/tell me the wrong thing and I'll believe it.
"Trust in AI" is layperson for "believe the technology is as capable as it is promised to be". This has nothing to do with stupidity or nefariousness.
It's "believe the technology is as capable as we imagined it was promised to be."
The experts never promised Star Trek AI.
The marketers did, though.
They're laypeople.
Most of the CEOs in Tech and even Founder in Startups overhyping their products are lay people or at best are people with some engineering training that made it in an environment which is all about overhype and generally swindling others (I was in Startups in London a few years ago) so they're hardly going to be straight-talking and pointing out risks & limitations.
There era of the Engineers (i.e. experts) driving Tech and messaging around Tech has ended decades ago, at about the time when Sony Media took the reins of the company from Sony Consumer Electronics and the quality of their products took a dive and Sony became just another MBA-managed company (so, late 90s).
Very few "laypeople" will ever hear or read the take on Tech from actual experts.
They did promise skynet ai though. They've misrepresented it a great deal
I would argue that there's plenty to distrust about it, because its accuracy leaves much to be desired (to the point where it completely makes things up fairly regularly) and because it is inherently vulnerable to biases due to the data fed to it.
Early facial recognition tech had trouble identifying between different faces of black people, people below a certain age, and women, and nobody could figure out why. Until they stepped back and took a look at the demographics of the employees of these companies. They were mostly middle-aged and older white men, and those were the people whose faces they used as the data sets for the in-house development/testing of the tech. We've already seen similar biases in image prompt generators where they show a preference for thin white women as being considered what an attractive woman is.
Plus, there's the data degradation issue. Supposedly, ChatGPT isn't fed any data from the internet at large past 2021 because the amount of AI generated content past then causes a self perpuating decline in quality.
I cannot process this idea of downplaying this technology like this. It does not matter that it's not true intelligence. And why would it?
If it is convincing to most people that information was learned and repeated, that's smarter than like half of all currently living humans. And it is convincing.
Some people found the primitive ELIZA chatbot from 1966 convincing, but I don't think anyone would claim it was true AI. Turing Test notwithstanding, I don't think "convincing people who want to be convinced" should be the minimum test for artificial intelligence. It's just a categorization glitch.
Maybe I'm not stating my point explicitly enough but it actually is that names or goalposts aren't very important. Cultural impact is. I think already the current AI has had a lot more impact than any chatbot from the 60s and we can only expect that to increase. This tech has rendered the turing test obsolete, which kind of speaks volumes.
Calling a cat a dog won't make her start jumping into ponds to fetch sticks for you. And calling a glorified autocomplete "intelligence" (artificial or otherwise) doesn't make it smart.
Problem is, words have meanings. Well, they do to actual humans, anyway. And associating the word "intelligence" with these stochastic parrots will encourage nontechnical people to believe LLMs actually are intelligent. That's dangerous—potentially life-threatening. Downplaying the technology is an attempt to prevent this mindset from taking hold. It's about as effective as bailing the ocean with a teaspoon, yes, but some of us see even that as better than doing nothing.
ThE aI wIlL AttAcK HumaNs!! sKynEt!!
Edit: These "AI" can even make a decent waffles recipe and "it will eradicate humankind".. for the gods sake!!
It even isn't AI at all, just how corps named it Is clickbait.
AI is just a very generic term and always has been. It's like saying "transportation equipment" which can be anything from roller skates to the space shuttle". Even the old checkers programs were describes as AI in the fifties.
Of course a vague term is a marketeer's dream to exploit.
At least with self driving cars you have levels of autonomy.
Before chatgpt was revealed, this was under the unbrella of what AI meant. I prefer to use established terms. Don't change the terms just because you want them to mean something else.
There's a long glorious history of things being AI until computers can do them, and then the research area is renamed to something specific to describe the limits of it.