Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Artificial intelligence (view source)

Revision as of 21:09, 1 January 2024

4,498 bytes added , 1 January

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|tech|}}That first great contradiction in terms. The [[algorithm]] which observes that you bought sneakers on Amazon last week, and concludes that carpet-bombing every unoccupied cranny in your cyber-landscape with advertisements for the exact trainers [[Q.E.D.]] you no longer need, is an effective form of advertising.
+{{a|technology|{{image|Cricket prediction|png|''Why'' your job is safe: [[AI]] might whup [[Go]] grand-masters, but they don’t understand [[cricket]].}}}}
+{{Quote|“Look, good against remotes is one thing, good against the living, that’s something else.”
+:—Han Solo}}
+{{quote|The automatic pilot is not much help with hijackers.
+:—{{author|John Gall}}, {{br|Systemantics: The Systems Bible}}}}{{d|Artificial intelligence|/ɑːtɪˈfɪʃ(ə)l ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒ(ə)ns/|n|}}
-Also, the technology employed by social media platforms like [[LinkedIn]] to save you the bother of composing your own unctuous endorsements of people you once met at a [[business day convention]] and who have just posted about the wild old time they've had at a [[panel discussion]] on the operational challenges of regulatory reporting under the [[securities financing transactions regulation]].
+. An [[algorithm]] which deduces that, since you bought sneakers on Amazon last week, carpet-bombing every cranny of your cyber-scape with advertisements for trainers you no longer need is an effective form of advertising. <br>
+. The [[technology]] employed by [[social media]] platforms like [[LinkedIn]] to save you the bother of composing your own unctuous endorsements of people you once met at a [[business day convention]] and who have just [[share]]d the stimulating time they’ve had at a [[panel discussion]] on the operational challenges of regulatory reporting under the [[securities financing transactions regulation]], by composing an unctuous reply for you. “''So'' inspiring!” <br>
+. '''[[Machines are fungible]]'''. <br>
+. Oh help me we lawyers are all doomed because of ChatGPT-3
-===The practical reason your jobs are safe===
+Stand by for an essay. But first, answer this: why do we insist on making things ''easy'' for the machines? We seem progressively to be expected to align ourselves to the affordances and capabilities of machines to ''appraise'' ourselves on how good we are at things we know machines excel at. And then we are surprised, and alarmed, when machines can pass the bar exam.
-Is that, for all the wishful thinking ([[blockchain]]! [[chatbot|chatbots]]!) the “[[artificial intelligence]]” behind reg-tech at the moment just ''isn't very good''. Oh, they'll talk a great game about “natural language parsing” and “tokenised [[distributed ledger technology]]” and so on, but bear in mind that what is going on behind the hood is little more than a sophisticated visual basic macro. A lot of the magic of the world-wide web really isn’t, technologically, that sophisticated. Information retrieval is really a no more than devising a basic metadata schema and hey — even muggins like the [[Jolly Contrarian]] can do that (how do you think this wiki works?). Actually parsing natural language and doing that contextual, experiential thing of knowing that, ''yadayadayda [[boilerplate]] but '''whoa''' hold on, tiger we’re not having '''that''''' isn’t the kind of thing a startup with a .php manual and a couple of web developers can develop on the fly. So expect [[proof of concept|proofs of concept]] that work ok on a  pre-configured [[confidentiality agreement]] in the demo, but will be practically useless on the general weft and warp of the legal agreements you actually encounter in real life — as prolix, unnecessary and randomly drafted as they are.
-The thing is, there is some genuinely staggering AI out there, but it ain’t in regtech — it is in the music industry. The AI drummer on Apple’s Logic Pro. That’s amazing, and that really is putting folks out of work. Likewise Izotope’s mastering plugins.
+==The ''practical'' reason [[why your job is safe]]==
+Is that, for all the wishful thinking ([[blockchain]]! [[chatbot|chatbots]]!) the “[[artificial intelligence]]” behind [[Reg tech|reg-tech]] at the moment just ''[[Reg tech can remain disappointing longer than you can remain animate|isn’t very good]]''. Oh, they’ll talk a great game about “[[neural network]]s”, “natural language parsing”, “tokenised [[distributed ledger technology]]” and so on, but only to obscure that what is going on behind the misty veil is little more than a sophisticated visual basic macro.
-If only Izotope realised how much money there was in regtech, they wouldn't be faffing around with hobbyist home recording types like yours truly.
+''Actually'' parsing [[natural language]] and doing that contextual, experiential thing of knowing that, ''yadayadayda [[boilerplate]] but '''whoa''' hold on, tiger we’re not having '''that''''' isn’t the kind of thing a startup with a .php manual and a couple of web developers can develop on the fly. So expect [[proof of concept|proofs of concept]] that work on a  pre-configured [[confidentiality agreement]] in the demo — ''everything'' looks good on a confi during the pitch<ref>You could almost make a JC [[maxim]] out of that, come to think of it.</ref> — but will be practically useless on the general weft and warp of the contracts you come across in real life — as prolix, unnecessary and randomly drafted as they are.
+===There ''is'' amazing [[AI]], but it’s not in [[financial services]] regulation===
+The thing is, there is some genuinely staggering AI out there, but it ain’t in [[reg tech]] — it is in the music industry. The AI drummer on Apple’s ''Logic Pro''. Amp emulation. Izotope’s mastering plugins. These are genuinely amazing, and really are putting folks out of work/bringing professional studio technology in the hands of [[Dangerboy|talentless amateurs]] (delete as applicable).
-===The actual reason your jobs are safe===
+If only Izotope realised how much money there was in [[reg tech]], they wouldn’t be faffing around with hobbyist home recording types. Note, by the way, the sphere that musical AI operates in: the complicated and the simple. It is not required to interpret, [[Problem solving|problem-solve]], trouble-shoot or solutionise. It has a fully determined job and it does it, fantastically.
-More particularly, why [[artificial intelligence]] won’t be sounding the death knell to the [[Legal eagle|legal profession]] any time soon. Because Computer language isn’t nearly as rich as human language. It doesn't have any tenses, for one thing. In this spurious fellow’s opinion tenses, narratising as they do a spatio-temporal continuity of existence that we have known since the time of [[David Hume]] cannot be deduced or otherwise justified on logical grounds, is the special sauce of consciousness, self-awareness, and therefore intelligence. If you don’t have a conception of your self as a unitary, thinking thing, though the past, at present and into the future, then you have no need to plan for the future or learn lessons from the past. You can’t narratise.
+Guess what: lawyers don’t operate in a fully determined environment. They ''have'' to [[Problem solving|problem-solve]], trouble-shoot and solutionise. That is ''all'' they have to do.
+==The ''theoretical'' reason your job is safe==
+Strap in: we’re going [[Epistemology|epistemological]].
+Evolution does not converge on a [[platonic ideal]]. It ''departs'' from an imperfect ''present''. It isn’t intelligent; it is a blind, random process reacting to [[unknown unknown]]s; it cannot anticipate the future where, as [[Criswell]] put it, “you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives”. Those [[unknown unknown]]s are random, [[complex]], non-linear and dynamic. What is a dominant factor today might not be tomorrow<ref>Just ask the inventors of, oh, the canal, the cassette, the mini-disc, the laserdisc, the super-audio cd, VHS, betamax, the mp3 player ...</ref>, and the interdependencies, foibles and illogicalities that interact to create that process are so overwhelmingly [[Complexity|complex]] that it is categorically impossible to predict. If you could, the pathway from a sharpened stick to the singularity would be dead straight, the development of technology would be a relentless process of refinement, all mysteries could be solved by [[algorithm]], and ''we would be there by now''.
+BUT THAT’S NOT AT ALL HOW IT WORKS.
+Evolutionary [[design space]] is four-dimensional. If you were to regard it from a dispassionate, stationary frame of reference — you know, a [[2001: A Space Odyssey|magnetic anomaly planted on the moon]] or something, you would see technological progress hurtling chaotically around the room like a deflating balloon.
+From our position, ''on'' that balloon, the parts of [[design space]] we leave behind seem geometrically more stupid the further away we get. But we are not travelling in a straight line.
+Bear in mind also that an artefact’s value is in large part a function of its cost of production. Absent a monopolistic impulse, that is the ''ceiling'' on its value. The moment you can digitise and automate something costlessly, its ''value'' drops to zero. No-one will pay you to do this for them ''because they can do it for themselves''. This is just one of those unpredictable illogicalities that randomises the trajectory of evolutionary design.
+Proposition therefore: ''value depends on the cost and difficulty of production''.
+If you successfully automate a complicated operation, the ''value'' of carrying out that operation drops proportionately, so to wring any value out of it you need to make it ''more'' complex. Note the complexity resides not inside that automated component, but in how that automated component interacts with the other components. By removing some cost and uncertainty, you’ve added more at a more abstract scale. The [[subject matter expert]]ise required to understand that wider, systematic complexity is far greater than was required to manage that component pre-automation (by definition, right? you just automated it with a machine that does it for free. How hard can it be?).
+==The actual reason [[why your job is safe]]==
+More particularly, why [[artificial intelligence]] won’t be sounding the death knell to the [[Legal eagle|legal profession]] any time soon. Because Computer language isn’t nearly as rich as human language. It doesn’t have any tenses, for one thing. In this spurious fellow’s opinion tenses, narratising as they do a spatio-temporal continuity of existence that we have known since the time of [[David Hume]] cannot be deduced or otherwise justified on logical grounds, is the special sauce of consciousness, self-awareness, and therefore intelligence. If you don’t have a conception of your self as a unitary, thinking thing, though the past, at present and into the future, then you have no need to plan for the future or learn lessons from the past. You can’t narratise.
 Machine language deals with past (and future) events without using tenses. All code is rendered in the present tense: Instead of saying:
@@ Line 43: / Line 72: @@
 *{{aiprov|On machine code and natural language}}
 {{ref}}
+{{c|Technology}}