“Fear is the mind’s red tape, slowing the march of innovation”
Scott E Campbell, former boss, Goldman Sachs.
Recently, a prominent member of the bar council had a bit of a moan about Artificial Intelligence (AI), suggesting maybe we should rein it in with some rules. Got me thinking, though.
You know that old joke among economists? If you don’t know where the train’s heading, how do you set the tracks? If you were given a paintbrush and asked to paint an image that hasn’t come into clarity in your own mind, how would you proceed? It’s a tricky scenario, to say the least.
Interestingly, the noisiest “AI skeptics” are often from media circles, not legal. They’re okay with robots assembling cars but God forbid if AI pens an article!. Human nature, I guess. We’re all for innovation until it’s at our doorstep.
Here’s the thought. If AI systems like Chat GPT or Bard are becoming better than us in some areas, isn’t that what we want? Do we fancy a hammer that misses the nail? Of course not! We all but drool at the thought of machines doing tasks with precision we humans can only dream of. So, why settle for less?
I recall penning a note back in 2019 about AI and jobs. The gist? AI’s not taking our jobs anytime soon.
Consider language. Kids babble early, but true mastery? It’s a marathon. And if I occasionally trip over my own tongue, think of the pratfalls an AI would make. Especially with things like puns – if an AI gets those, then it’s starting to grasp our tricky language.
When it comes to tripping over words, have you ever caught people playing fast and loose with economic jargon? I held off on commenting about our second quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plummet until I spotted a news headline (pic). Someone had used the term “moderate” (menyederhana) to gloss over the drop. The media can be hilariously inventive, especially when they’re in the business of softening blows for the government. Since when did we swap words like ‘fall’ or ‘decline’ for ‘moderate’? I mean, who would describe a falling durian as having a “moderate” descent?
It’s almost as if there’s a collective effort to put lipstick on a pig, making something that’s clearly bad seem, well, less so. For clarity, in economic terms, the proper words are: Contracted – menguncup; Fall – jatuh; Decline – menurun. And I’m pretty sure there’s no “modest” (sederhana) to sugarcoat a massive GDP dive from 5.6 per cent to 2.9 per cent.
Whenever I see these blunders, I can’t help but chuckle. Still, they offer a peek into the quirky ‘house styles’ each field adopts. And though we economists might shake our heads at such antics, we don’t cry “Fake news!” Nope, we teach, we guide, and we push forward.
Should we wrap AI in red tape then? The AI itself isn’t what we should be wary of; it’s our tendency to inflate our fears about it.
I’m not saying be reckless. We just need to approach it sensibly.
Misinformation from AI? It depends. It’s like a kid learning, making blunders we can spot easily or tripping up just like I might without a good once-over from a senior editor. Simply put, they’re still catching up.
That’s it.
Remember when the media had a tight grip on what we knew? It chose which stories saw the light of day, and which were snuffed out in the dark.
Then came the internet, and suddenly, Tom, Ali, and Kiah weren’t just everyday people – they became reporters and influencers.
These days, anything outside the mainstream narrative is quickly labeled “fake news” or “misinformation”. Gone are the days of direct, in-your-face censorship. The days of a simple “Shush!” are behind us. Now, it’s all about deciding which stories get a green light. On this modern chessboard of information, the “fact-checkers” are ruling the roost, calling the shots on what’s considered true.
The notion that machines like ChatGPT might liberalise information seems to unsettle a few. There’s a legacy at play, you see. Decades have seen massive resources in shaping our collective psyche, using tools from school syllabuses to newspaper headlines. So, when a disruptor appears, isn’t it expected for the old guard to sweat?
What’s the end game here? This isn’t just about guarding against potential falsehoods. It’s about ensuring that the narratives we consume are… well, curated.
This narrative control is reminiscent of George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” from “1984”. Influence language, and soon you’re piloting thought. But in this sea of perspectives, who gets to hold the compass?
Look, every groundbreaking invention – from Gutenberg’s press to the World Wide Web- always freaked out a few. Being scared? That’s us being human. But so is exploring the unknown. So, before we brand AI with “Do Not Use” signs, let’s explore this new world with an open heart and a steady hand.
After all, stepping into the unknown has always been humanity’s signature move. Let’s tread into the AI age with wisdom, not hysteria.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
