Dr. Andy Farnell Says "AI" is "Only a Marketing Term" for Things That Exist for "Entertainment Purposes Only"
Some hours ago Dr. Andy Farnell published this article about distortion or misuse of the term (now buzzword/s) "AI". "Kate asked me for a quick layman's summary of what "AI" really is," he said, "why the world is turning against it, and why it's a problem that professionals should avoid." From his article:
"AI" is a meaningless term to us computer scientists [...]"AI" represents a change in the values of computer users from "reliable enough to bet your life on" to "sometimes good enough". It's a change from deterministic to probabilistic computing: If each time we do something we get a random but useful result, that's not science, it's luck. "AI" is like a one-armed bandit gambling machine. People who make decisions but don't know a lot about computers are mixing up these two styles of computing and putting much at risk.
"AI" is therefore a social phenomenon. It's a de-educational cultural revolution to reign-in and dampen liberal democracy because it subtracts agency and understanding. It subtracts it from people to locate it in (more efficient) machines.
"AI" is a form of theft. Recall that with machine learning we need neither the programmer nor the subject matter expert to be present. We just provide examples from many experts to the learning machine. We don't even need to ask or pay the expert, just spy on their behaviour or steal their published work. A serious moral problem with "AI" is that it's trained on data without the creators' consent. To add insult to injury these companies would like the protection of "intellectual property" law to apply for them and protect their "AI" software from being shared and copied. They are colossal hypocrites.
[...]
"AI" is a solution looking for a problem. It's driven by growth needs of the semiconductor industry whose technology has already largely met all human needs. The remaining problems are political.
[...]
In conclusion, I consider "AI" only a marketing term. It says so little and hides so much. It is for "entertainment purposes only". In recent years I've heard little or nothing useful from the breathless mass media. Nothing that feels informative, measured, reflective or educational (with perhaps the exception of Dr. Hannah Fry who put a good foot forward). Most of the coverage is dishonest and deliberately misleading, with no note of modesty or rational scepticism.
[...]
People who've dedicated their lives to their work and are not idiots should not have to feel bullied into silence at the risk of being labelled "a Luddite" or some other childish insult.
Also see his first part. █