What we casually call AI currently is a set of computerized and database-driven functionalities that should not be considered – and certainly should not be regulated – as a single unit with a single rule.
Science fiction writer Ted Chiang observed that humanized language for computer activities misleads our thinking about amazing, but deeply limited tools, like effective weather predictors and art generators. There is sorting, excluding, selecting and predicting in these applied statistical processes, but not context, thinking or intelligence in the human sense.
AI exists in extensive forms and functionalities, with too many tools raising too many separate and unrelated societal problems. Attempting to regulate the entire set of technologies would be overreaching and likely ineffective. Instead, if we wish to effectively legislate AI, we should break the definition into functional categories that raise similar issues for the people affected by the technology in that category.
By adopting this thinking, AI management becomes less daunting and more effective.
Source: JD Supra
Leave a Reply