I can't quite figure out where the critical voices are here ... shouldn't the BBC be making an effort for impartiality on this crucial political issue? It's as though the significant risks AI poses are simply an acceptable price to pay for a technology with as-of-yet-uncertain large scale benefits.
When will we be able to pivot from "AI has the potential to [insert benefit]" to "AI has shown to be [doing the benefit]"? When will this potential be realised, rather than remain a millenarian trope around which to organise the present?
In 2024, Eric Schmidt said that he does "a weekly call with the heads of all the AI companies" in which they "rank the problems" affecting the industry. One of the biggest problems was energy and the second one is Washington, that is to say, regulation. You never guess what happened next ...
Idk, Wes Streetings speech seemed like a strange hotchpotch of talking points (an uncharitable assessment would perhaps suspect low level ChatGPT use here). What struck me as most interesting was his use of the language we are familiar with from tech industry / oligarchy contexts ... 1/
We talk so often of AI as the next industrial revolution, but AI strikes me as different. Has there ever been a trajectory where the actual, proven utility of a technology was absent, yet socio-economic and political life pre-emptively was structured around expected capabilities?
If there was effective regulation against systems that have known harmful effects on humans and human environments would an AI company's valuation of nearly USD 1 trillion be possible? Discuss.
