As usual, some one else is opining on AI, this time an MIT economist. As noted in the NY times:
David Autor seems an unlikely A.I. optimist. The labor economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is best known for his in-depth studies showing how much technology and trade have eroded the incomes of millions of American workers over the years. But Mr. Autor is now making the case that the new wave of technology — generative artificial intelligence, which can produce hyper-realistic images and video and convincingly imitate humans’ voices and writing — could reverse that trend. “A.I., if used well, can assist with restoring the middle-skill, middle-class heart of the U.S. labor market that has been hollowed out by automation and globalization,” Mr. Autor wrote in a paper that Noema Magazine published in February. Mr. Autor’s stance on A.I. looks like a stunning conversion for a longtime expert on technology’s work force casualties. But he said the facts had changed and so had his thinking. Modern A.I., Mr. Autor said, is a fundamentally different technology, opening the door to new possibilities. It can, he continued, change the economics of high-stakes decision-making so more people can take on some of the work that is now the province of elite, and expensive, experts like doctors, lawyers, software engineers and college professors. And if more people, including those without college degrees, can do more valuable work, they should be paid more, lifting more workers into the middle class.
The advantage of being over eighty is that I have a memory of times distant. I am now more productive than I was sixty years ago. Why? Simply:
1. Word processing and spreadsheets. I can now create documents the way I think. Layer after layer, assembling like a puzzle, looking for the missing pieces and putting them together. I do not need a typist, no secretary. Wish I had an editor, but I do not rely upon AI ever doing that. Editors must not change the intent. I once had an editor who wanted co-authorship, for doing nothing, just inserting his thoughts. As for spreadsheets, in the old days they were massive sheets of numbers and calculators. Hours wasted, rigid thinking.
2. Search engines let me get what I want. I get to choose and seek out the best that reflects my intent. They are primary pieces of work. Perhaps with AI they will all be reflective of GIGO stuff! But now at least I can get some original work short of fraud.
3. Smart phones. I hate Apps, like to text and make calls if necessary. Real time access globally. Apps are what I see the walkers staring at when I cycle by.
4. Zoom, the initial attempt at multimedia. Kind of works, but still like human contact. Not easy any longer in NYC, likely to get assaulted of killed, retro to the Dinkins Days. Not easy at MIT since the gated the campus. Lots of equity but no access. That was then end of my donations.
5. Online books. I now buy the hardcover to get the online version. Rarely use the hardcover, easy to search the online. Hardcovers are great backdrops for Zoom calls.
Now I fear that AI will not add to this.
As to doctors and lawyers, not really. Osler was famous for "if all else fails listen to the patient". AI is not really a good human listener, especially for symptoms and things that need understanding. As for lawyers, this is really game playing. One step to beat out a previous step. Lawyers often make a lot up on the fly.
On the convergence of law and medicine, I asked a few Docs who were praising AI in medicine, who do I sue when a patient is harmed. The response was "I guess I get sued" In fact liability for AI use is negligible. Lawyers will have a field day. Now consider AI and FDA approval. FDA may approve an AI engine as a medical device. But minutes after the approval the "device" just gathered more information, does it then make the device unapproved? This will be a field day for litigators. There is no law, no precedence.
Posts
