Arrr! Ye scurvy AI be threatenin' th' 2024 election! Let's take a gander at past tech swashbucklin' to learn a lesson or two!
2024-01-25
Methinks worries o' artificial intelligence meddlin' wit' th' 2024 elections be justified, but verily, 'tis naught strange in recent times. Arrr, be there a pirate votin' council to be wary of as well?
Concerns about AI interfering with the 2024 elections are not unprecedented, as demonstrated by the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA in 1975. This conference set the precedent for responding to new scientific knowledge by developing guidelines for regulation. However, the author argues that regulation is not the solution to AI concerns. Instead, they believe that the premise of processing massive amounts of data at the expense of sustainability should be debunked. The challenges posed by AI and the 2024 elections are seen as ethical rather than regulatory in nature. The author emphasizes the need to understand and mitigate the potential dangers of AI on society and the democratic system. They assert that AI is solely focused on solving mathematical problems and does not care about election outcomes. The use of AI in manipulating the behavior of previously unengaged voters is seen as a political gold mine, raising ethical questions. The author argues that replacing human judgment with machine inferences undermines the political system and highlights the absence of an anticipatory dimension in mechanistic technology. They stress that AI lacks a sense of right and wrong and has no conscience. The Turing machine, the basis of all computational technology, is said to lack the human aspect represented by the meaning of data. The Asilomar Conference is presented as evidence that progress based solely on data processing can lead to destruction. The author draws parallels between the promises and realities of gene manipulation, COVID function changes, and AI in medicine. They argue that AI regulation, like what was endorsed at Asilomar, will not prevent aberrant applications. Instead, a scientific foundation that goes beyond reducing behavior to physics and chemistry is needed. The author concludes by urging society to wake up and choose the right path, emphasizing the existential imperative to disrupt science.