Last November marked unprecedented buzz in the tech world very few are probably still unaware of. A couple months later, I took to social media (saying I have a meager presence is an understatement) to express my views on the second coming of deep learning models and their likely impact in the years to come. And that hasn't changed.
I am both a proponent and an opponent. My tone in the rest of the post should tell you where I am leaning. Biological Evolution is a profound phenomenon, made elusive by disputable and often laughable theories, many of which even flout and mock the very idea. If evidence is anything to go by, our experiences—from the food we eat to the work we do and don't—all of those constantly shape and reprogram the DNA over years. Evolution is indeed a thing of reality.
Every sensory experience is registered. Alterations in the genes are passed down through generations without our noticing. Tech, in particular, comes with instant results and gratification. The advent of AI models has been overwhelming, and without question, they are profoundly gene-altering stuff—so was the mobile phone, even if to a smaller extent.
I had pressed on the need for introducing regulations—and there aren't any yet—on these products, and I maintain that half a year later. We are devolving all the time, thanks to the phone and the AI that has proven itself increasingly indispensable. Our brains will shrink, and they are shrinking faster than we know; reduced activity and stimulation are to blame. There is also this unlikely, yet much-debated possibility of AI backfiring and overpowering/eliminating humans. As biological descent looms, the question is really what lawmakers can do to get the good out of AI and nip the bad in the bud. With all the good these models can do to improve daily lives and raise productivity by leaps, they undeniably bring enough peril to be wary of.
No comments:
Post a Comment