For the world AI is a monolith general purpose technology unleashed to bring miracles in everything we do at a mammoth scale. The foundations have already been laid and it would be a smooth ride henceforth encompassing all of us to usher in a life of abundance, zero or very little drudgery and facing none of the bottlenecks which mar our present day existence. The research and development is presumed to be unilinear and it would keep moving in currency charted direction and that all the dramatis personae are on the same page. For the torch bearers of the AI revolution as it stands, there is a lot of churning happening.
The churning may or may not evolve a philosophy and practice of AI structured and regulated to cater to mankind in the best possible manner. Till then the battle of technological and commercial supremacy in AI will be waged fiercely. It would be a battle of products, compute, tech models, use cases, production and utility. The other is about the very nature and controls required on AI. A fiery debate rages on about whether it’s a doomsday technology or the gateway to a world of future abundance or even whether it’s a throwback to the dotcom bubble of the early 2000s.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei famously predicted that AI would wipe out half of all white-collar jobs. It is a much gloomier outlook compared to the optimism offered by OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang. Jensen Huang, speaking at the Viva Tech conference criticized Amodei for his stark warnings about AI dangers, particularly regarding the massive job loss. Huang accused Amodei of promoting a monopolistic and alarmist perspective implying that only Anthropic should develop AI technologies, describing him as impractical and unrealistic. Huang said AI should be built in the open, leveraging global participation and transparency.
Amodie in a recent interview vehemently denied Huang’s accusations that he is seeking to control the AI industry and also expressed profound anger at being labelled a “doomer.” He called Huang’s statements an “outrageous lie.” He insisted that his advocacy is not for monopoly, but a “race to the top”- a race between companies to set high standards for safety and ethics in AI. His father’s death from a preventable medical error profoundly shaped his commitment to developing safe and beneficial AI. Similar tragedies need to be avoided in future. The public clash between the leading lights of AI illustrates the divergent vision on AI’s future.
IS JUNGLE GROWTH OF AI TO THE SOCIETY’S ADVANTAGE?
Sanjay Sahay
Have a nice evening.