That artificial intelligence is a very hot topic these days it is something indisputable. After years of hearing about it and then seeing how it timidly appeared in our lives, the last year and a half has been surprising, because in a short time the services based on it have sprouted like mushrooms on a sunny day. after two of abundant rain. Thus, it is rare the day that we do not know about a new service, a new function, a new integration of the existing ones… it is evident that the technological ecosystem has stepped on the accelerator.
So, The news in this regard is divided mainly into two large blocks. On the one hand we have what I have just mentioned, the wave of novelties that seek to make artificial intelligence more present in our lives. And, on the other hand, we find ourselves with the discussion on other aspects related to AI, such as its dangers, the need to establish an adequate regulation and, of course, the hypotheses about the future that awaits us once it this technology begins to gain positions in many activities that today are jobs.
We have already seen movements aimed at limiting the growth of services based on artificial intelligence, at least until they adapt to current regulations and, above all, so that regulators have the necessary time to establish the legal framework that allows their implementation. , that of AI, does not have disastrous results at a social level. Examples of this are, for example, the open letter “Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter”, the scrutiny that ChatGPT is undergoing in several European countries or, and this is undoubtedly the most relevant, the plans of the European Union for the adoption of an AI regulatory law before the end of the yeara remarkable response time, if we take into account the usual deadlines of these institutions.
Despite these movements, there are still people concerned about the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, and some of those people are more than accredited voices in the field. The latest and very relevant example of this can be found in Dr. Geoffry Hinton, a pioneer in the development of neural networks and who, since 2013, has worked at Google as an expert in artificial intelligence. An employment relationship that has come to an end, since Hinton has decided to leave Google to dedicate himself to speaking openly about the dangers associated with artificial intelligence.
In the NYT today, Cade Metz implies that I left Google so that I could criticize Google. Actually, I left so that I could talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google. Google has acted very responsibly.
—Geoffrey Hinton (@geoffreyhinton) May 1, 2023
At this point, yes, it is important to clarify (and he himself has done so through your Twitter account) that He has not left Google to be able to criticize the search engine company, but to be able to warn of the risks of AI without harming your employer. Moreover, in said message he goes so far as to affirm that «Google has acted very responsibly“, something that we can associate with the caution with which the company has approached the deployment of Bard.
As for the reasons, that is, the risks to which Hinton alludes, there are mainly two concerns. On the one hand, he focuses on the potential use of generative artificial intelligences for the creation of fake content. And it is true that if false news has been intoxicating public opinion for some years now, being able to create false texts, audio, images and videos, with quality standards that are growing day by day, is something to be quite concerned about. On the other hand, the one who was the winner of the Turing award in 2018 also points to the potential of artificial intelligence to eliminate jobs and even to write and run your own codesomething whose consequences we are not yet able to fully explore.
I personally believe that Hinton’s decision honors him, and I also think that, now that you are no longer a Google employee, the first to dial your phone number should be precisely those regulators who are already working to establish the appropriate legal framework. Whether they are from this side of the pond or from the other side of the pond (or, why not? both), I have no doubt that their knowledge and vision of the subject would be exceptionally enriching in such a context.
