Sports Illustrated had a reputation for many years as the best of sports journalism. My father was a subscriber when I was in my teens and in spite of having little interest in sports (I played Chess and followed the then current Vietnam War), I often enjoyed the writing.
Imagine my surprise when on my news feed began appearing stories about Sports Illustrated using AI to write articles.
So pursuing a business ethics story I began to do research on AI and its effect on journalism. The proverbial image of “opening a can or worms” is not adequate for this situation. It was more of an explosion.
I have been reading about AI for years but not closely. Close examination reveals multiple disasters and constant crisis. I was not surprised by this. In writing about business ethics, you constantly encounter situations that threaten the planet and human life. These are almost always resolved or limited or subject to human intervention – – and things often got better.
AI is an exception. When you research it, the most striking things about the writing is the air of inevitable disaster. It is viewed by experts and industry observers as well as many in government as the coming unavoidable tragedy, the oncoming storm.
I share this point of view.
It cannot be stopped. It will change how we do financial transactions, how the internet functions, how warfare is conducted and the list is almost endless.
Philosophically it raises the question of “what purpose do human being serve?” It does that because much of what we think of as creative or intelligent, AI programs can do.
Let me give you example. Vincent Van Gogh lived long before the concept of AI. But less us bring him to life for just a moment. He will create at this current time, one painting. Just one. He paints stars and sunflowers. We hand this off to an AI graphics program and tell it to create versions of this painting in high definition picturing a variety of things from pictures taken in the past. It can create thousands (really millions) of new and original renditions of his work. That one painting patterns, brush strokes and technique can be duplicated by machine over and over again almost to the state of infinity.
The same can apply to writing, composing music, architecture and the list goes on. And while the AI lacks originality in the class human sense, it can and will and has combined works. You could take our Vincent Van Gogh painting and combine it with a Turner landscape. The AI program will happily churn out millions of those hybrid works if you so desire. You can combine authors, musicians, and so on – and in a real way create new and original work.
Am I suggesting that AI will replace art? No, it will make it less profitable and less human. There will probably be a lot more of it. We will see “new works” from Dickens, Beethoven and Whistler.
But that’s just creativity. What about routine activities like selling, buying and just general blue collar work? AI allied to robotic devices could make virtually all of that doable without humans.
And do I really need to get into the implications of the military use of AI? Presumably in a few years, AI’s could autonomously launch, win and conclude conflicts on their own. Just the idea of a small drone autonomously, patiently, unemotionally hunting down a human being gives me chills. And that is the smallest imaginable chuck of the military effects.
Can we as a species limit the power and use of this new technology? I say species because the problem of AI is far larger than the modern nation state can successfully cope with. Unless there is some worldwide agreement, the chance of preventing abuse is simply non-existent.
Consider how AI could revolutionize crime, espionage and political harassment. Stopping bad actors from using this technology is essential if we are to preserve the basic elements of civilization because AI is a massive wrecking ball of technology.
The last time we faced anything like this was with the development of nuclear weapons. We have successful so far in dealing with that technology in the sense that we yet survive. And that gives me hope for the future.
We human beings have survived ice ages, wars and our own failures of judgment over the ages. Our track record for survival is pretty good.
You might say, “Well James, you’ve led us into a dead end of horror and failure? Is that the best you can do?”
I’m still wrapping my mind around the concepts and, of course, I expect to return to the topic again.
This thing is very, very bad in its implications. We are about to see change at a rate, human beings have never experienced before. The Great Depression, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the end of colonialism and all the other massive changes in the past are going to be trivial by comparison.
This is going to change every element of our lives and it is going to do it with considerable speed.
I promise you if I can find answers to this problem, I will share them with you.
James Alan Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 