Anticipation of Superintelligence: Klaus highlights the looming emergence of superintelligence as pivotal in history. This transition, where computer intelligence surpasses human intelligence, promises captivating entertainment and potential concerns.
AI Development Beyond the Public Eye: Klaus underscores the quiet development of AI, which often occurs outside the public's awareness. These advancements occasionally surface unexpectedly, emphasizing the importance of addressing issues related to ownership, credit, and societal value as AI evolves.
Credit and Recognition in the AI Era: Klaus touches on the evolving challenges of assigning credit and recognition in the age of AI. While creators and authors have traditionally been acknowledged for their contributions, the distinction between human and computer-generated content raises complex questions about uniqueness, morality, legality, and the need for standards to protect individuals from potentially harmful AI-generated output.
In the future, we will be entertained, maybe horrified, by the specter of superintelligence. It will be the event in time when computer intelligence crosses over and supplants human intelligence as primary. Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, has studied the future possibilities through many AI experts.
The conversion date is around 25-30 years from now (2023) or later, as was pointed out by Peter Singer, Philosopher at Oxford, that it may be too distant to worry about now, given all the other problems that need tending. However, AI develops outside the hustle and bustle of the daily grief and conflicts of everyday life anywhere on the planet and shows up in competition in very select and technical expositions, and “surprise!!”. If, by that time, or one would hope (what else is there?), a resolution can be reached to isolate human effort from computer-generated stuff to assign proper credit/ownership and value to the public.
Microsoft’s venture into this world was a computer named Taylor, nicknamed Tay, who took messages from 18-24-year-olds and sent messages through the unit from which the computer “learned.” Not too long after, the computer was hailing Hitler as the way to go. The unit was shut down and all deleted (you think?).
The creator or author gets credit for first place, first experience, first accomplishment, and acclaim for their contribution. It is a fact that people get recognition for what they give rather than what they receive. It is not uncommon for people to be paid to compensate them for their time and effort so that the general public can have access to and learn from their work.
Now we are faced with the distinction of who was the creator, and is it really unique, or unique enough, to be assigned a place for recognition as a human effort? Or did a computer synthesize a possible conflagration of previous bytes of information into a composite that may apply? Or is it not possible? Or is it immoral, dishonest, illegal, or life-threatening? Who or what will decide whether the output from the character of the input into a computer matches a matrix of societal, legal, and cultural standards to protect the innocent and vulnerable among us from harm?