Boondoggle: a wasteful or impractical project or activity, often involving graft — Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Tonight, I started Reading "Futureproof: 9 Rules for Humans in the Age of Automation", as part of my reading up on AI. (It's recommended reading for anyone interested in the topic, although I can't remember who or what recommended it.)
I've only read the introduction so far, but this part of it struck a chord (emphasis mine):
My biggest problem with the mainstream AI debate, though, is that both sides tend to treat technological change as a disembodied natural force that simply happens to us, like gravity or thermodynamics. Both the optimists and the pessimists talk about “algorithms curing diseases” or “robots taking jobs,” as if machines can be programmed with both sentience and career ambition. Neither side does a good job of acknowledging that humans are waking up every day and making decisions about how to design, deploy, and measure the effectiveness of these systems. I hear the “automation is destiny” argument all the time — especially in Silicon Valley, where people tend to talk about technological progress as a speeding train we either have to climb aboard or get run over by — and I get why it’s tempting to believe. For a long time, I believed it myself. But it’s wrong. And deep down, we all know it’s wrong.
From the very first time a Homo sapiens rubbed two sticks together to make a fire, technological change has always been driven by human desires. The printing press, the steam engine, social media — these things didn’t appear out of nowhere, fully intact and integrated into society. We designed them, created laws and norms around them, and decided whose interests they should serve. Innovation is not an irreversible phenomenon, either, and previous generations have successfully fought to limit the spread of harmful tools such as nuclear weapons, asbestos insulation, and lead paint, all of which represented technological progress in their day.
Whether you think AI and automation will be great or terrible for humanity, it’s important to remember that none of this is predetermined. Executives, not algorithms, decide whether to replace human workers. Regulators, not robots, decide what limits to place on emerging technologies like facial recognition and targeted digital advertising. The engineers building new forms of AI have a say in how those tools are designed, and users can decide whether these tools are morally acceptable or not.
This is the truth about the AI revolution. There is no looming machine takeover, no army of malevolent robots plotting to rise up and enslave us.
It’s just people, deciding what kind of society we want.
[...] Now, as at every point in history, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, each determined by the choices we make. If there is a robot apocalypse, it will be one of our own creation. And if this technological revolution makes the world fairer, happier, and more prosperous, it will be because we stopped endlessly theorizing and debating, took hold of our own destinies, and made ourselves futureproof.
— Introduction
It seems there's hope for us yet, if only we get to have a say as to how/when AI/automation is implemented in our lives.
I'll likely post more interesting snippets as I continue to read the book, so look out for those (or pick up the book yourself; there's an ePub version available.)
