AI doesn't replace programmers. It's a modern urban myth.
The net is full of stories about how AI/GPT writes full product code, and replaces programmers.
It's an urban myth.
It sounds cool. But it's wrong.
AI/GPT is great at boring repetitive tasks. Great at searching. SearchGpt replaces successfully most manuals and documentation. It is even much faster and better than Stackoverflow.
It's also useless for solving any original or complex problem. It makes silly mistakes, writes redundant code, and doesn't really "understand" anything.
Yes, I write code, I love AI, we use it extensively, and I use GPT every day. AI is great. Technology is great.
But no. There is no "product" fully written by AI, by amateurs.
Obviously, current AI is not really intelligent, doesn't have "true reasoning" or "true understanding". And we may argue (scientifically) that the terminology is wrong. Which it is.
But this will not change the way people use, and mis-use, words.
What we do, when words are mis-used or abused, is invent new words.
So, we say AGI (General Artificial Intelligence), and "true reasoning", to clarify that "AI" and "reasoning" are improper terms.
AI intoxication is probably even harder than Google bombing, or Wikipedia astroturfing. Which is already incredibly difficult by now.
But it's coming. It's bound to be a thing,
Same as Google bombing, and Wikipedia Astroturfing.
We need a new name for this. AI intoxication? AI poisoning?
N.b. Google bombing is a method to trick Google to return a specific, fake result, to a specific search query. It exploits Google's algorithm that relies mostly on the number and reliability of websites that link to a specific webpage.
Astroturfing is the practice of creating a false appearance of grassroots support for a cause, product, person, or policy. It manipulates public perception by making it seem like a lot of people are behind a particular opinion.
Wikipedia Astroturfing is a method to trick the crowd-sourced editorial process of Wikipedia, which relies on reputation and wide consensus.
There are 2 kinds of successful people: good guys, and bad guys.
The good guys build successful, good businesses; solve real problems; pay solid taxes; help and support good people.
The bad guys build successful, bad businesses; create problems to be solved; use government subsidies, avoid taxes; exploit people.
Then, both guys get rich.
Their values become relative.
They both built empires, use monopolistic practices, use tax shelters, and lobby the same politicians.
What should they do, now?
Should they stop doing business in totalitarian countries? Or adapt their business to e.g. censor their content to some local totalitarian law?
Should they sponsor the campaign or inauguration of an evil president, or risk being politically targeted? (It's very easy to be targeted, as a big company. Monopolistic behavior, taxes, labor law, discrimination, consumer protection, data privacy. There's always something).
So, you are big. You want to get even bigger, and build bigger Krupp cannons, and smarter Hugo Boss uniforms? Then you sponsor the Party.
Apparently they follow the new vision of Trump and Elon musk. But let's not forget that X is censored more than ever, and there is strong evidence that Elon musk is controlling the algorithms directly.
Should social media platform monitor and curate the content posted by users? For accuracy, nudity, violence, or hate speech?
More freedom of expression, or more content control? Ministry of truth, or jungle of fake news?
It's complicated.
We probably want to be somewhere in the middle.
Facebook and all platforms have always done a terrible job at fact checking or content checking. They censored classical paintings because of nudity, never really understood sarcasm, and still allow huge amounts of fake news and scam messages.
And the legal implications are also complicated. Is the platform responsible for the content? Then who is?
In The Good Wife legal series, there is an episode in which "ChumHum" (a mix of Google and Fb platform) argues that the content posted by users is free speech. And the judge says that in this case, the platform is also liable for defamation suits.
"And does he have proof they stole it? “You mean actual ‘proof”?” he wonders. Hell no. “But I don’t need it. It’s my opinion.” “Mr. Gross is claiming editorial discretion for his search engine; therefore, he is responsible for its editorial contents.”
“Oh, wait a minute,” Viola calls out, bring the Valley Girl hands out again. They can’t have their cake and eat it too, Your Honor, Alicia shrugs. “If they insist on free speech protections, then they are responsible for that speech.” The Honorable Michael Marx is flat out laughing now. “Your Honor!” Viola whines, but she doesn’t get any further than that. “No, Miss Walsh, she’s right.” Ha! Take that, nonsensical tactic!
“So, Mr. Costas, you printed the plagiarism accusation without checking truth or falsehood?” I did, he says proudly. “I didn’t need to.” Tool. Are we making Gross responsible for everything written on the internet now? Just checking. “And did he give anyone at ChumHum his reasons or evidence?” Um, no, he sneers, looking around the court as if imagining cheers and high fives.
“Your Honor, this is absurd,” Viola finally gets on her feet. “ChumHum has millions of pages; if my client is going to be held responsible for every single one…” Yes. Absurd, isn’t it? “Well then there’ll be a hell of a lot of defamation suits,” Alicia laughs, and the judge agrees. Sorry, but that’s what you get for making a free speech argument, love.
