137533

AI will only be as intelligent as the sources that are input. There will be debate over what is generally accepted as fact. Look at all the disparities between creation vs. science, abortion, capital punishment or climate change. Theologians study the many sources with regard to scripture before canonizing any text. Even the hanging chad in Election 2000 required human decisions. It will likely create jobs in the implementation phase and to keep the system honest afterwards. Robots already do a lot in industry. That's because mechanical actions have only one best solution and can be implemented via PLC's and machine language. The tradeoff between jobs lost and gained may be a small %. I see the big challenge being integrity of the "facts" and ethical questions after that. Do we allow computers to make decisions that require human emotions? If it is confined to scientific applications there may be fewer issues. Even so, the owners will have to agree on what is the accepted solution or outcome. If we allow it to decide who gets approved for loans, benefits, job placement or similar we may face some serious gaps. AI does not equal "common sense", or if it does whose input is it based on? The providers could intentionally program in a result that most benefits them, rather than the population. I'm not qualified to say but it may be difficult to put human judgements in an algorithm or program. Just like many other things that we said 50 years ago will never happen, this has been slowly happening for years. It's way above my expertise and orientation, thankfully, because life can be far too complicated already. Bring back the abacus. Thanks for sharing.