The positive counter-narrative that eventually will supersede the gloom & doom stories that are currently clouding the take off of this amazing new technology
Peter, Good stuff! In my space of direct response marketing I have seen some pushback regarding AI. It's funny how people lament about both the amount and relevance of ads they receive. Data Scientists are now leveraging AI to find "in-market" prospects. They do this thru both online and offline data. They are looking for patterns of activity and purchases preceding an ultimate purchase across as wide a swath of past customers as possible. The end goal is to make ads relevant as these prospects have literally raised their hands with interest in a given product or service. While the amount of ads might not go down their relevance increases. Which I would argue is a win for the consumer.
The list goes on. One I would like to build on - education. Inclination by schools - shut it down. Fear. What will we do. Students at all levels will cheat. What I’ve found, albeit w master and doctoral students, is use that flexes a different and perhaps more important muscle. Critical thinking. Read the output. Is it correct? What is wrong, what needs to be added, what is right, “oh I never thought of that” are all a part of utilizing the output. Maybe a little extra effort if fearful (teachers or Professors) do not ask for papers. Other ways to demonstrate cognition. Much more to say about the other categories but since I teach this in Adult Ed, this is my approach. Encourage its use. Use it well. And, for now, ICs and managers have the advantage while the big corporate machines figure out new “strategies” which may (will) be obsolete by the time there is ideation, agreement, and consensus. Thanks!
Jul 12, 2023·edited Jul 12, 2023Liked by Peter Leyden
Good and much needed piece on the positive potential of generative AI. The online culture has become obsessed with scare narratives. Despite the "this time really is different" argument/assertion, AI will most likely have the same overall good effective as previous transformative technologies and only be different in that they will come faster and be more dramatic. I'm hopeful that this will be true of biomedical research. I've done my bit to contribute to the positive side of things in pieces such as one on "existential opportunity":
"Like the arrival of widely accessible Artificial Intelligence via Generative AI could provide humans with exactly the tool we all need to deal with the complexity of our most daunting challenges like climate change."
Fundamentally unserious article spotted.
No, seriously, help me out here - how do the new slate of generative AIs (read: "turbocharged autocomplete") help us solve climate change? The problems involved in climate change are overwhelmingly not technical problems - they're political ones. Specifically, the political problem of massively wealthy individuals and corporations spending massive amounts of money to convince people the problem isn't real and politicians that the problem shouldn't be dealt with. There's all kinds of things we could do better and don't - not because of complexity, but because Exxon effectively owns the swing vote of the senate. What, is the AI tool going to give me the best way to prevent blatant corruption?
Even if it was a matter of technical details, current generative AI models are really bad at that, too - they just make stuff up. Like, when tasked with creating a legal document (which some poor schmuck lawyer thought was a good plan), it invented citations to legal cases that do not exist. And you want these tools to help provide personalized medicine? The current negative headlines surrounding generative AI are largely based on the problems the systems have, and the problems they have are significant.
You're not being "optimistic". It is not "optimism" to look at the way things are and downplay every negative aspect. It is not "optimism" to pretend that a piece of technology that is being hyped to high heavens can help resolve every problem when you don't even seem to understand what the problems are or what the technology is. Pitching generative AI as a tutor or even a doctor given what the technology is currently capable of (again: turbocharged autocomplete known to frequently lie) is not optimism. It's fantasy. You are *fantasizing* here. This is speculative fiction.
Peter, Good stuff! In my space of direct response marketing I have seen some pushback regarding AI. It's funny how people lament about both the amount and relevance of ads they receive. Data Scientists are now leveraging AI to find "in-market" prospects. They do this thru both online and offline data. They are looking for patterns of activity and purchases preceding an ultimate purchase across as wide a swath of past customers as possible. The end goal is to make ads relevant as these prospects have literally raised their hands with interest in a given product or service. While the amount of ads might not go down their relevance increases. Which I would argue is a win for the consumer.
The list goes on. One I would like to build on - education. Inclination by schools - shut it down. Fear. What will we do. Students at all levels will cheat. What I’ve found, albeit w master and doctoral students, is use that flexes a different and perhaps more important muscle. Critical thinking. Read the output. Is it correct? What is wrong, what needs to be added, what is right, “oh I never thought of that” are all a part of utilizing the output. Maybe a little extra effort if fearful (teachers or Professors) do not ask for papers. Other ways to demonstrate cognition. Much more to say about the other categories but since I teach this in Adult Ed, this is my approach. Encourage its use. Use it well. And, for now, ICs and managers have the advantage while the big corporate machines figure out new “strategies” which may (will) be obsolete by the time there is ideation, agreement, and consensus. Thanks!
Good and much needed piece on the positive potential of generative AI. The online culture has become obsessed with scare narratives. Despite the "this time really is different" argument/assertion, AI will most likely have the same overall good effective as previous transformative technologies and only be different in that they will come faster and be more dramatic. I'm hopeful that this will be true of biomedical research. I've done my bit to contribute to the positive side of things in pieces such as one on "existential opportunity":
https://maxmore.substack.com/p/existential-risk-vs-existential-opportunity
"Like the arrival of widely accessible Artificial Intelligence via Generative AI could provide humans with exactly the tool we all need to deal with the complexity of our most daunting challenges like climate change."
Fundamentally unserious article spotted.
No, seriously, help me out here - how do the new slate of generative AIs (read: "turbocharged autocomplete") help us solve climate change? The problems involved in climate change are overwhelmingly not technical problems - they're political ones. Specifically, the political problem of massively wealthy individuals and corporations spending massive amounts of money to convince people the problem isn't real and politicians that the problem shouldn't be dealt with. There's all kinds of things we could do better and don't - not because of complexity, but because Exxon effectively owns the swing vote of the senate. What, is the AI tool going to give me the best way to prevent blatant corruption?
Even if it was a matter of technical details, current generative AI models are really bad at that, too - they just make stuff up. Like, when tasked with creating a legal document (which some poor schmuck lawyer thought was a good plan), it invented citations to legal cases that do not exist. And you want these tools to help provide personalized medicine? The current negative headlines surrounding generative AI are largely based on the problems the systems have, and the problems they have are significant.
You're not being "optimistic". It is not "optimism" to look at the way things are and downplay every negative aspect. It is not "optimism" to pretend that a piece of technology that is being hyped to high heavens can help resolve every problem when you don't even seem to understand what the problems are or what the technology is. Pitching generative AI as a tutor or even a doctor given what the technology is currently capable of (again: turbocharged autocomplete known to frequently lie) is not optimism. It's fantasy. You are *fantasizing* here. This is speculative fiction.