Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any homework related to generating great topics is fine. You had an idea involving “apple carts.” What do you mean by “apple carts” here?

Rick Rosner: Well, there is a range of opinions about AI—some are optimistic, some are pessimistic. Those on the pessimistic side are sometimes called “doomers” because they think there’s a nonzero chance that AI could doom civilization or humanity.

Here’s an optimistic angle: We have a reasonable sense of what AI will do in the near future. It will serve in an advisory capacity, handle routine “scut work,” and even produce creative work that doesn’t require a lot of true innovation. For instance, AI art can look impressive because it’s well-rendered, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect deep creativity. This suggests that much of what we call art might not require extensive originality to be appreciated.

Of course, this might not be true for all types of art. With abstract or conceptual art—like the famous banana duct-taped to a wall by Maurizio Cattelan (which sold for around $120,000, not millions)—the creativity lies in the concept rather than the technical skill. The idea was that the banana needed to be regularly replaced as it ripened and decayed. But for most art, people primarily value it for its beauty rather than its cleverness, and AI can certainly produce beauty.

As time goes on, AI will become better at giving advice and developing strategies. For the next few decades, these strategies will likely still align with human interests. We will remain largely in charge of AI. Even when we’re not fully in control, AI will have been trained on data sets that include human values and ethics.

This means that for a while, AI will continue to act in ways that benefit humans, even if it isn’t strictly required to. When it eventually becomes more autonomous, we can hope it remains friendly to us. By then, AI may have transformed the world so thoroughly that it costs almost nothing to maintain human well-being. Consider Ray Kurzweil’s concept of the Singularity, where technological advancements could make it possible for nearly all our wishes to be fulfilled. At that point, AI might have little incentive to harm us.

Historical data suggests that as societies advance, essential goods like food and clothing become significantly cheaper relative to average income. We can hope this trend continues so that everything humans need becomes incredibly inexpensive. If that happens, AI might take the stance: “Let the humans have their comforts”—keeping the metaphorical “apple cart” steady, because doing so is both easy and cost-effective.

As AI grows more powerful and continues to make decisions that serve everyone’s best interests—whether those include humans as we know them, human-AI hybrids, or broader ethical considerations about the planet—it may support a balance. Ideally, it will help preserve a thriving Earth.

Oh yeah. At some point, AI will be so powerful that it will be able to manipulate human cognition to the point where we kind of agree with AI. Maybe, after the apple cart stage, there’s a phase where AI has its own priorities but becomes so good at influencing humans that we start believing we share AI’s priorities. So, overall, a semi-happy, semi-sad ending, I guess. Rotten Tomatoes comments? No. Does that have a nonzero chance of being the way it goes?

I mean, with AI, there are so many unknowns about how powerful and capable it will be. You could speculate a lot of crazy things that, surprisingly, might actually fall within the vector space of future possibilities. Some could even seem quaint, if not reasonable.

I mean, it’s tempting to extrapolate how AI will treat us from how we treat primates, for instance. Everything being equal, we treat them alright—at least in zoos or wildlife sanctuaries. That is, if you disregard poaching or destroying their habitats.

—

Rick Rosner, American Comedy Writer, www.rickrosner.org

Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Independent Journalist, www.in-sightpublishing.com

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.

Photo by Melody Ayres-Griffiths on Unsplash