On AI
The Rise
The last year or so has seen us careen headlong into an interesting new world
with AI tools. The beginning of the hype started in late summer of 2021. GitHub
released its technical preview of GitHub Copilot and we got to see a large
language model spit out code, including Copyleft licensed code, at an
astonishing rate. In many cases, it eased writing boilerplate code and generating
test cases.
Then in the summer of 2022, we got to see a series of AI image generators
(Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, etc) take the world by storm, often to hilarious
effect (0). These image generators opened up a new can of worms,
occasionally beating out traditional artists in art competitions. And now,
of late, we’ve had a series of excellent Deepfake photos of prominent figures
like Pope Francis in a giant white puffer jacket. These Deepfakes got so bad that
Midjourney shut off free trial access to users.
Finally, 2023 has been the time of AI chat bots. The internet has been abuzz with
the wonder of ChatGPT 3 and 4, collectively gasping at its seemingly magical
responses to open ended questions. Companies are furiously attempting to integrate
ChatGPT and its ilk (e.g. Bard) into every nook and cranny of their products.
From Security products(1) to Notion(2) to Slack(3) to basically
every Microsoft(4, 5, 6) product, companies are releasing
integrations at a breakneck pace. The competition has gotten so fierce that
industry laggards (sarcasm) have collectively signed a letter asking the
frontrunners to slow down.
The Fall (?)
Meanwhile, pundits (read: hacks and frauds) are predicting that ChatGPT will be
replacing programmers, writers, and other “knowledge workers” in the near
future. These exagerrated claims ignore the fact that ChatGPT is comically
expert at hallucinating answers. Faced with answering a precise complex question,
ChatGPT will do its best statistically, but it is still a very
educated guess. Instead of answering precise questions, ChatGPT is best suited
to managing, gathering, and summarizing context.
Combine this with the fact that a good portion of knowledge workers’ day to day
work is actually bullshit work. Knowledge workers spend inordinate amounts of
time summarizing, writing reports, building presentations, and curating
dashboards. This is not the real value of knowledge workers. Their value is in
interpreting context and making decisions - making sense of the chaos.
The Reality
So what does any of this mean? Should knowledge workers be worried? Should
we throw up our collective hands and surrender to our new AI overlords?
Nah. If you’re a knowledge worker or work in a field requiring knowledge
assimilation, you’re best suited to learn how to use these tools. Most
importantly, you should learn to recognize when the tool is wrong or not behaving
as expected. Our dystopian future means that we now have to sift out when humans
AND machines are lying to us. A healthy dose of skepticism is going to the
real skill of the future.
But what about plagiarism?
One area of hot debate is people using ChatGPT to plagiarize complete
assignments for classes or engage in online conversations (e.g. Tinder). What
is the line between using a tool to help you and using a tool to do the work for
you?
I think learning to craft a persuasive argument is an important skill. However,
is there a material difference between asking ChatGPT to write a persuasive
argument with your own prompting and input versus the author writing it entirely
themselves? The line is blurry, certainly. On the other hand, a number of papers
I was asked to write in school were effectively summaries - extract the major
plot points, and summarize their significance. If you’re really gunning for an
A+, you’ll do a little analysis comparing and contrasting with a situation in
your own life (hypotethical or not). The power of ChatGPT is in drawing these
connections for you, building a context for you to understand rapidly. Might
we bring back traditional debate (i.e. rhetoric) for students to argue the
merits of their position?
I think this will be an issue of hot debate, with schools panicking to various
degrees on what to do. Unfortunately, banning ChatGPT won’t work. It won’t work
for the same reasons banning so many other things hasn’t worked. At this point,
the cat is out of the bag. Better to find ways to integrate it into your
curriculum, evolve how you evaluate assignments, and give your students
a leg up on their peers who did not learn to work with these tools.
As to the topic of catfishing potential matches on Tinder… People have been
disingenous and fooling eachothers for millenia. Using a tool to fool someone
with slightly better prose isn’t exactly a monumental and earth-shattering
development. Con-men have been doing it for years. It just so happens that
ChatGPT has unlocked conning others at a larger scale.
As I said above - skepticism is the real skill of the future. Turning a critical
eye toward what you consume and learning to balance your excitement with
skepticism will be key to success.
And what about artists?
The particular issue of artists is interesting. Artists have long had their
work undervalued. Painters may spend weeks or months producing a work that only
sells for $8000-10000. That may seem like a lot, but if we assume that they
worked on it for 12 weeks an average of 30 hours per week, that’s $23-27 per hour.
And that is being extremely generous - most artists will never see $8000-10000
for one of their works.
Similarly, photography has gotten increasingly competitive. Cameras have
become increasingly easy to use. Improvements in Photoshop, Lightroom, and other
photo editing software have enabled users to take mediocre photos and transform
them into often unbelievable images. Now any one with a mid-spec camera, a few
days of practice, and a license for Adobe Creative Suite can do a mostly
competent photoshoot. Granted, photoshoot photography is probably the furthest
from “art” in the photography world.
AI image generation applications like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion have
opened up a world of image creation. Clever prompt engineering and re-processing
renders can reveal wild creations. Ultimately, whether art is created through
prompt engineering or by classical methods isn’t really the point.
What’s more important is that these new methods are simply different. Different
in the same way that portraiture with a camera is distinct from portraiture
painting. The distinguishing factor is the speed with which this art can be
created. When photography became commonplace, you no longer needed to sit for
hours to have your portrait made.
The Future
There are two points I think will become increasingly important. One is a matter
of personal identity and the other is an issue of global resource use.
As AI tools like Large Language Models (e.g. ChatGPT) and image generators (e.g.
Midjourney) improve, being able to verify authenticity will increasingly
important. I’m betting on an entire market around authentically “human” creations
will spring up. We already see the beginnings of this with the movement toward
bespoke products like suits, knives, leather goods, and more.
Between newer authentication methods like Passkeys and biometrics (e.g.
TouchID, FaceID) to services enabling users to pay for verification, there is
a lot of fertile ground for innovation. Provably verifying that an artifact
was created by a person or that an image is a real photograph will be
increasingly important. We haven’t even scratched the surface on Deepfake
products and images.
Another question we’ll have to wrestle with is how will we justify the cost?
These tools are incredibly resource intensive. Where will we draw the line of
how much value running these models brings to the table? Will we be able to
justify the cost?
I think this will largely be at odds with how quickly we revamp our energy
infrastructure. Fortunately, renewable energy sources like solar and wind
are being rolled out at a surprisingly rapid rate, with a few problems.
Fortunately, I do think AI is a more worthwhile investment than Cryptocurrency.
Especially in the case of Proof-of-Work, which is a massive waste of energy. We
can only hope frivolous energy consumption like this will be banned in the
near future.
The End?
We didn’t cover perhaps the most important question - what about General AI?
Well - that may be the real end. Large Language Models, despite sounding
convincingly human, are not General AI. They’re building responses that seem
statistically plausible, but cannot reason about the veracity of what they
tell you. The ability of AI to meta-introspect on the responses it gives us
will be the beginning of the rise of General AI.
I, for one, am not convinced we’ll see General AI before we manage to destroy
the planet. And if we do see General AI, it’ll probably destroy us for what
we’ve done to the planet.
—–
Posted on: 2023-04-01
Tagged as: thoughts,
artificial intelligence