Perhaps the most perturbing aspect of the AI litmus test is the intelligent individuals who see AI as a gray area and take a middle ground approach to the whole matter.
On the one hand, such individuals appear to understand or at least sense the overall manipulative and evil intent of AI, can sense its overarching destructive impact on human thinking, observe its inherent limitations and fakery, and scoff at the overall misnomer of referring to something fundamentally unintelligent as intelligent.
On the other hand, the same individuals are most content to laud certain aspects of AI—for example, its apparent ability to summarize effectively—and treat the top-down imposed technology as, at worst, an ethically neutral “tool” that is chock full of all kinds of utility if approached with the right motivations.
Hence, such individuals declare AI to be a gray area. Probably more useful than useless. Neither good nor evil. Inevitable. The future, so why split hairs about it?
I don’t know how one approaches an innately evil thing with good or, at best, neutral motivations. Perhaps that in and of itself represents the hallmark of the gray area attitude—the ability to see the evil in something yet shrug and coolly state that the jury is still out.
Look—there is no gray area when it comes to AI. No vagueness that needs clarifying. No uncertainty that needs certifying. No inseparable, overlapping Venn-diagram bubbles. No blurred lines that need to be brought into focus. No middle ground one can contently occupy. It’s black and white, clear as day, through and through.
Thus, gray area declarations and attitudes about AI are misguided attempts to sidestep an obvious evil under the banner of moderation, intelligence, discernment, and moderation.
As far as I can tell, AI is shaping up to be even worse than the birdemic, during which such gray area types could at least claim they had no choice in the matter or had been summarily tricked by authorities they had trusted.
But now?
On the one hand, such individuals appear to understand or at least sense the overall manipulative and evil intent of AI, can sense its overarching destructive impact on human thinking, observe its inherent limitations and fakery, and scoff at the overall misnomer of referring to something fundamentally unintelligent as intelligent.
On the other hand, the same individuals are most content to laud certain aspects of AI—for example, its apparent ability to summarize effectively—and treat the top-down imposed technology as, at worst, an ethically neutral “tool” that is chock full of all kinds of utility if approached with the right motivations.
Hence, such individuals declare AI to be a gray area. Probably more useful than useless. Neither good nor evil. Inevitable. The future, so why split hairs about it?
I don’t know how one approaches an innately evil thing with good or, at best, neutral motivations. Perhaps that in and of itself represents the hallmark of the gray area attitude—the ability to see the evil in something yet shrug and coolly state that the jury is still out.
Look—there is no gray area when it comes to AI. No vagueness that needs clarifying. No uncertainty that needs certifying. No inseparable, overlapping Venn-diagram bubbles. No blurred lines that need to be brought into focus. No middle ground one can contently occupy. It’s black and white, clear as day, through and through.
Thus, gray area declarations and attitudes about AI are misguided attempts to sidestep an obvious evil under the banner of moderation, intelligence, discernment, and moderation.
As far as I can tell, AI is shaping up to be even worse than the birdemic, during which such gray area types could at least claim they had no choice in the matter or had been summarily tricked by authorities they had trusted.
But now?
RSS Feed
