grazie della segnalazione.
il paper linkato è di 52 pagine quindi non azzardo commenti anche se le
prime pagine che ho letto mi paiono sensate e centrate.
in ogni caso il tema che gli autori pongono mi pare rilevante:
The normal technology frame is about the relationship between
technology and society. It rejects technological determinism,
especially the notion of AI itself as an agent in determining its
future. It is guided by lessons from past technological revolutions,
such as the slow and uncertain nature of technology adoption and
diffusion. It also emphasizes continuity between the past and the
future trajectory of AI in terms of societal impact and the role of
institutions in shaping this trajectory.
ovvio che chi non ha mai visto un martello potrebbe decidere di vederci
una rappresentazione del divino ma sappiamo che serve per piantare
chiodi; e nel piantare chiodi è molto utile per tutti quelli che prima
usavano pietre prese al fiume per piantare i chiodi; e così facendo
spesso si schiacciavano le unghie o storcevano i chiodi.
Maurizio
Il 04/05/25 14:56, Daniela Tafani ha scritto:
AI as Normal Technology
An alternative to the vision of AI as a potential superintelligence
By Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor
April 15, 2025
We articulate a vision of artificial intelligence (AI) as normal technology. To
view AI as normal is not to understate its impact—even transformative,
general-purpose technologies
such as electricity and the internet are “normal” in our conception. But it is
in contrast to both utopian and dystopian visions of the future of AI which
have a common tendency to
treat it akin to a separate species, a highly autonomous, potentially
superintelligent entity.
The statement “AI is normal technology” is three things:
a description of current AI,
a prediction about the foreseeable future of AI, and
a prescription about how we should treat it.
We view AI as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue
that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions or technical
breakthroughs. We do not
think that viewing AI as a humanlike intelligence is currently accurate or
useful for understanding its societal impacts, nor is it likely to be in our
vision of the future.
The normal technology frame is about the relationship between technology and
society.
It rejects technological determinism, especially the notion of AI itself as an
agent in determining its future. It is guided by lessons from past
technological revolutions, such as
the slow and uncertain nature of technology adoption and diffusion. It also
emphasizes continuity between the past and the future trajectory of AI in terms
of societal impact and
the role of institutions in shaping this trajectory.
In Part I, we explain why we think that transformative economic and societal
impacts will be slow (on the timescale of decades), making a critical
distinction between AI methods,
AI applications, and AI adoption, arguing that the three happen at different
timescales.
In Part II, we discuss a potential division of labor between humans and AI in a
world with advanced AI (but not “superintelligent” AI, which we view as
incoherent as usually conceptualized). In this world, control is primarily in
the hands of people and organizations; indeed, a greater and greater proportion
of what people do in their jobs is AI control.
In Part III, we examine the implications of AI as normal technology for AI
risks. We analyze accidents, arms races, misuse, and misalignment, and argue
that viewing AI as normal technology leads to fundamentally different
conclusions about mitigations compared to viewing AI as being humanlike.
Of course, we cannot be certain of our predictions, but we aim to describe what
we view as the median outcome. We have not tried to quantify probabilities, but
we have tried to
make predictions that can tell us whether or not AI is behaving like normal
technology.
In Part IV, we discuss the implications for AI policy. We advocate for reducing
uncertainty as a first-rate policy goal and resilience as the overarching
approach to catastrophic risks.
We argue that drastic interventions premised on the difficulty of controlling
superintelligent AI will, in fact, make things much worse if AI turns out to be
normal technology— the
downsides of which will be likely to mirror those of previous technologies that
are deployed in capitalistic societies, such as inequality
<https://www.aisnakeoil.com/p/ai-as-normal-technology>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
if we spent on prosecuting the rich
just one-tenth of the effort we spend prosecuting the poor
it would be a very different world
Bruce Schneier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurizio Lana
Università del Piemonte Orientale
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli
