Week 1 - Why AI?

     


    In chapter one of the book, Surfing the Tsunami, by Todd Kelsey, we are introduced to his background and life and how he came to know artificial intelligence. I think the opening Chapter is a rather superficial and surface level understanding of AI and why we should pay attention to it. This is not to discredit its importance or Todd's story of how he came to know about it but having grown up between the analog and digital world and having friends that work in all types of sectors I think his base assumptions are wrong.

    For example, consider the following quote: "It’s probably safe to say that the field of artificial intelligence is in its early stages; ultimately the goal of artificial intelligence is to explore how far computers can be taken to simulate human intelligence, or potentially to exceed human intelligence" (Kelsey Surfing the tsunami p. 10). Artificial intelligence, as a real research field has been around since at least the 1940's when the first binary classifier algorithm was created (McCulloch and Pitts A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity). Fundamentally, Artificial Intelligence, at least at our current stage, is creating a universal estimator. There is a theoretical limit to what neural networks, that is AI, can learn (Hornik et al. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators). It's the difference between an actual function and estimating the function. If you know the equation, why would you put it through a regression test or better yet if you can do calculus then why draw rectangles underneath the curve as it were.

    AI is still very useful, but I think it is a bit alarmist to say that "machine learning is just that: a machine learning something" (Kelsey Surfing the tsunami p. 18). If you define learning through simple approximation than I would agree, but again the question arises what is learning, comprehension, and what does it mean to understand? Philosophical questions aside, being more practical, he is correct that it will change the way we work and things like entirely automated manufacturing is here to stay. In my day-to-day job I work as a Co-Pack planner for a manufacturing company, and we have an entirely automated manufacturing facility that still employs 450 associates, and my job is theoretically capable of being all automated. I pull demand forecasts from a machine learning model; I communicate the demand and balance our supply with our external packer and do tons of routine automatable work. The question is why it hasn't been automated and the most obvious answer is because it is still too expensive to replace everyone, in the dynamics of an economy there still needs to tangible economic benefits and consumers willing to pay for it. Humans are what spend money for the most part and spend it in irrational ways. More importantly work is not something that exists with a fixed capacity and if you ask ChatGPT about the lump of labor fallacy and how AI, like itself, relates to it, it says:

 As for the relevance to artificial intelligence (AI) like me, the lump of labor fallacy often comes up in discussions about automation and the impact of AI on employment. Some argue that AI will lead to widespread job losses as machines take over tasks previously performed by humans. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that AI can also create new opportunities, industries, and jobs.


For example, AI can automate repetitive tasks, freeing up human workers to focus on more complex and creative endeavors. It can also enable the development of entirely new products and services that were not possible before. While certain jobs may become obsolete due to AI, new roles will emerge in AI development, maintenance, oversight, and other related fields.


Additionally, AI can enhance productivity and efficiency in various industries, leading to economic growth and potentially creating more job opportunities in complementary sectors. Therefore, the lump of labor fallacy reminds us to consider the broader implications of AI adoption and not simply focus on job displacement but also on the potential for job creation and economic advancement (Dynamic Economy Overcomes Fallacy, ChatGPT).

     Chapter 1 has only convinced me that AI is another tool - while a powerful tool it seems that some people get carried away with its potential and its promises.

Location: St. Louis, MO, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AI and Modern Marketing

Image
      Marketing is a broad term that seems to refer to the concept of influencing a set of consumers into soliciting a good or service. Marketing, in some form, has probably been around since the beginning of history; we could consider evolutionary marketing where partners of opposite sex "market" their availability and prowess in different forms. For example, in humans we market our availability and prowess or compatibility to a partner verbally through flirting or in the ways we dress. This is just a simple example, but marketing as a field of business has likely also been around since humans have been offering goods or services.      As crude as it may seem, but the world's oldest profession, prostitution, is just an extension of the evolutionary marketing into business marketing in a way (Parsons 2005). Modern marketing has developed to take advantage of our developed evolutionary marketing and while most cannot agree on when or where modern marketing has its origins,
Read more

What can't AI do?

Image
      Going by the picture above it certainly struggles a fair amount with creating words in images. These artifacts or strange portions of an AI's work such as a person having more than five fingers or just not generating the correct image at all are known as hallucinations. In my last post, I pointed out that machine learning models have a theoretical limit to what they can learn. Although I want to be clear that not all AI is machine learning, but all machine learning is AI as machine learning is a subset of AI that uses neural networks to learn.     Recently, Computerphile, a lovely YouTube channel interviewed Dr. Mike Pound at the University of Nottingham about a new paper that came out about whether or not generative AI has already peaked or rather the possibility that we will get further and further diminishing returns.     I will not go in depth over the video as you can watch it for yourself nor in depth over the paper, but I would like to pull a few graphs from the paper
Read more