That AI isn't human intelligent is already conceded in the name AI. Not that any doomer is brave enough to set forth a working definition of intelligence, understanding, or reason sans human to debate. Doomers just say "I've calculated there is incalculable risk to wonkyAI of today and workingAI of tomorrow" and declare themselves above it.<p>It is far better a human get instant error-prone assistance on all previous walled off topics than none at all. Joe Blow is going off the reservation gaining forbidden knowledge with an outcome in mind so he will have to get better at discerning theory from practice from hallucination quickly. This demand of instant information supply should lead to much less illusions being held and much fewer books sold. Experts are understandably upset by the changes AI brings to their world but the best of them will find a way to remain involved in the betterment of humanity if that is the reason they went down that path.
First they came for chess, and the AI played so poorly that even a beginner could defeat them. Then Gary Kasparov lost.<p>Then they came for Go, and professionals could defeat these programs even given handicaps of 10+ stones in favor of the AI. Then Lee Sedol lost.<p>Then they came for vision, and there were so many features that it never worked. Then it became cheaper to make computer generated imagery than practical special effects.<p>Then they came for the brain—and the braniacs said the programs didn't actually understand, despite the programs doing better than the average person on standardized tests. Then...
These uninformed, reductionist writings are tedious and have the undertones of conspiratorial thinking that places the author as “the only person who sees the truth“.<p>There are so many inaccuracies, gross simplifications, mischaracterisations, and strawman arguments, that it’s not really worthwhile to use it as a basis for discussion.