George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
[A] Question:
If the features and functions of AI-labeled products and services that have mesmerized industry and society (e.g., GenAI-based) had instead been offered/presented in their exact form but without ANY reference to “artificial intelligence,” would they have garnered the same interest and enthusiasm, and solicited the same “shapeshifting of roadmaps” that we have seen on display?
If the answer to this question is NO, would it not be wise to “tap the brakes” and reflect on the deeper meanings of such a truth?
[B] Premise and deeper thoughts:
Although most would view this question as representing a fallacious argument or concern, the challenge I put forth is to consider the possibility that our societal and industry response to these new offerings has a hyperbolic component. Whose existence (the hyperbolic component) obfuscates future ramifications.
There is no doubt that GenAI evolved and matured to the point that it was appropriate for its public debut in late 2022 (through ChatGPT) and that its hard-won software engineering deserves accolades for its transformative value.
However, although I greatly appreciate it, I’m not in awe of its presence; instead, I’m in awe of the response to its presence.
----------------------------
If you believe questions such as these are already vetted and that the courses set by industry and society offer no concern, then state such in your answer. If you believe there is a concern, state your concerns, and then answer, should we “tap the brakes?”
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Dr. Eng. AHMAD ALATTASLeadership Consultanct| Leadership Enrichment for Leadership Consultancy Abu Dhabi, Az, United Arab Emirates
It's an interesting question you raise. I think it's possible that some of the excitement and enthusiasm around AI-labeled products and services may be influenced by the "AI" branding, rather than solely the inherent capabilities of the technology.
If these same features and functions had been presented without any reference to "artificial intelligence," it's conceivable that they may not have garnered the same level of interest and urgency. The "AI" label can carry a certain mystique and futuristic connotation that may shape perceptions and responses.
That said, I don't believe this necessarily invalidates the genuine transformative potential of these technologies. The underlying software engineering and advances in areas like natural language processing, computer vision, and autonomous systems are substantial and warrant serious attention.
However, your point about the need to "tap the brakes" and reflect on the deeper implications is well taken. We should be cautious about uncritically embracing new technologies, regardless of how they are branded. A more measured, thoughtful approach that considers potential risks and unintended consequences is prudent.
In feedback, I suggest that your questions are valid and deserve careful consideration. While excitement and enthusiasm are understandable, it's important to maintain a balanced perspective and ensure that decision-making is driven by a clear-eyed assessment of the technology's capabilities and limitations, rather than just the power of its branding.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Jun 10, 2024 9:33 AM
George Freeman
...
Dr. Ahmed,
Thank you for your thoughtful response!
In absolute terms, the technologies seeded and blossomed through the study of artificial intelligence deserve accolades for their transformative value. I state this personally, as this field of study has greatly influenced and contributed to the success of my practice over the decades.
My thoughts stem from the knowledge that current-day and future offerings are always a representation of “naturally progressed hard-won software engineering” that builds on the success and failures of its predecessors.
In that regard, we are in the rollout infancy of GenAI. Still, we have pronounced its success in industry and society when the definition of what “success is” and what “failure represents” finds no resolve amidst the pandemonium to be the first adopters of this toddler mystique.
George
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jun 10, 2024 2:25 AM
Replying to Dr. Eng. AHMAD ALATTAS
...
It's an interesting question you raise. I think it's possible that some of the excitement and enthusiasm around AI-labeled products and services may be influenced by the "AI" branding, rather than solely the inherent capabilities of the technology.
If these same features and functions had been presented without any reference to "artificial intelligence," it's conceivable that they may not have garnered the same level of interest and urgency. The "AI" label can carry a certain mystique and futuristic connotation that may shape perceptions and responses.
That said, I don't believe this necessarily invalidates the genuine transformative potential of these technologies. The underlying software engineering and advances in areas like natural language processing, computer vision, and autonomous systems are substantial and warrant serious attention.
However, your point about the need to "tap the brakes" and reflect on the deeper implications is well taken. We should be cautious about uncritically embracing new technologies, regardless of how they are branded. A more measured, thoughtful approach that considers potential risks and unintended consequences is prudent.
In feedback, I suggest that your questions are valid and deserve careful consideration. While excitement and enthusiasm are understandable, it's important to maintain a balanced perspective and ensure that decision-making is driven by a clear-eyed assessment of the technology's capabilities and limitations, rather than just the power of its branding.
Dr. Ahmed,
Thank you for your thoughtful response!
In absolute terms, the technologies seeded and blossomed through the study of artificial intelligence deserve accolades for their transformative value. I state this personally, as this field of study has greatly influenced and contributed to the success of my practice over the decades.
My thoughts stem from the knowledge that current-day and future offerings are always a representation of “naturally progressed hard-won software engineering” that builds on the success and failures of its predecessors.
In that regard, we are in the rollout infancy of GenAI. Still, we have pronounced its success in industry and society when the definition of what “success is” and what “failure represents” finds no resolve amidst the pandemonium to be the first adopters of this toddler mystique.
It's a complex question at a philosophical level. Let's imagine if it was labelled as "Aggregated human wisdom" instead of Artificial Intelligence [which is exactly how I see it].
I don't know if that would be as appealing as AI. I mean, we've watched hundreds of Hollywood AI movies, but only a few, probably dubbed in Chinese, about human wisdom. This will control our perception and reaction.
Also, AI evolved as AI evolved into a movie; it wasn't nurtured in the public sphere for years before reaching the state we see today.
...
1 reply by Winston C Ikekeonwu PMP
Jul 04, 2024 9:07 AM
Winston C Ikekeonwu PMP
...
Hakam, thanks for sharing that term "aggregated human wisdom"
That's basically what AI boils down to
Saving Changes...
Anne-Sophie DrouinProject Officer & Business Analyst| IDRCOttawa, Ontario, Canada
The marketing around AI definitively did its job of getting us to the 'Peak of inflated expectations'**. Some people have started to "tap the brakes" and this is why AI is starting to move down a slope (**ref. Gartner hype cycle - Wikipedia). Saving Changes...
Anne-Sophie Drouin I think the fast-paced development of AI models and the tools using these models are putting us in a Sisyphus-like cycle where we are trying to find freedom by chasing new development, but we can't keep up with it. Take Vertex or Anthropic Claude as an example; compare their model capabilities and powers with today's capabilities and powers, let alone planned capabilities and powers.
A few weeks ago, Google Vertex operated on 500,000 context lengths, which was already x2 ahead of the market (128k back then), and today, 2,000,000 are offered for free on Google AI Studio while ChatGPT free tier is capped at 8,000 tokens.
Another example of what Antrhopic did with the introduction of artefacts and projects is making everybody, even tech giants, follow the leads.
It's a complex question at a philosophical level. Let's imagine if it was labelled as "Aggregated human wisdom" instead of Artificial Intelligence [which is exactly how I see it].
I don't know if that would be as appealing as AI. I mean, we've watched hundreds of Hollywood AI movies, but only a few, probably dubbed in Chinese, about human wisdom. This will control our perception and reaction.
Also, AI evolved as AI evolved into a movie; it wasn't nurtured in the public sphere for years before reaching the state we see today.
Hakam, thanks for sharing that term "aggregated human wisdom"
That's basically what AI boils down to Saving Changes...
