AI poses existential threat and risk to health of millions, experts warn

[Retro]

It's a fact of life that advancements in technology can always be used for good or bad. Great example is nuclear physics. What came out of this are nuclear power stations (good) and nuclear weapons (bad, really bad). A car is used to get people around, but can also kill someone by running them over, etc.

It looks like the nature of AI poses a unique kind of threat, though.

AI could harm the health of millions and pose an existential threat to humanity, doctors and public health experts have said as they called for a halt to the development of artificial general intelligence until it is regulated.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to revolutionise healthcare by improving diagnosis of diseases, finding better ways to treat patients and extending care to more people.


But the development of artificial intelligence also has the potential to produce negative health impacts, according to health professionals from the UK, US, Australia, Costa Rica and Malaysia writing in the journal BMJ Global Health.

The risks associated with medicine and healthcare “include the potential for AI errors to cause patient harm, issues with data privacy and security and the use of AI in ways that will worsen social and health inequalities”, they said.

AI poses existential threat and risk to health of millions, experts warn

BMJ Global Health article calls for halt to ‘development of self-improving artificial general intelligence’ until regulation in place

www.theguardian.com

 

[Tiffany]

I'm still in the "I'll pass" for AI to have control over my healthcare. I prefer the interaction with a doctor, as every patient is different even with similar conditions.

 

[Retro]

Agreed, I don't think AI could match the intuition of a human doctor and certainly wouldn't have any empathy. It would be a good tool for a doctor to use for helping with his job though, especially for accessing a huge data set and filtering for the right data.

 

[wolfdeer]

I can't say I've liked the idea of AI since the beginning...

 

[Tiffany]

Agreed, I don't think AI could match the intuition of a human doctor and certainly wouldn't have any empathy. It would be a good tool for a doctor to use for helping with his job though, especially for accessing a huge data set and filtering for the right data.

That's what I was thinking...you finished my thought on how AI could help!

I can't say I've liked the idea of AI since the beginning...

Me neither. I don't trust it.

 

[wolfdeer]

Me neither. I don't trust it.

Yeah. Not saying I believe everything Elon Musk says, but the fact that he doesn't trust AI either gets me thinking.

 

[Tiffany]

Yeah. Not saying I believe everything Elon Musk says, but the fact that he doesn't trust AI either gets me thinking.

That does go a long way as Musk has Neuralink and obviously has seen the good and bad results of AI modifying biological animals and humans.

I'm good with technology, but I guess I'm a purist in most ways, for example, fine art is created by the vision and craftsmanship of a human's hand and imagination, no matter what type of art from oil painting to digital art. There are the tools an artists uses, but it's how the artist wields the tools that makes the masterpiece. AI creating art is not real art to me, as it doesn't maintain the same principles of originality and skill.

 

[wolfdeer]

AI creating art is not real art to me, as it doesn't maintain the same principles of originality and skill.

Absolutely.

 

[Crims]

Personally, art always depends on the audience, from concept to professional. AI art might later improve. Art has no real substance when it's produced by a tunnelvisioned machine.

 

[Retro]

Since art is subjective, I think the same pictures drawn by a human would be considered masterpieces. It's like there's a sort of discrimination against AI, maybe.

 

[Tiffany]

I think if AI art simply stays in the category of art by AI, I'd be okay with that. It's when someone uses AI for art and misrepresents it as their own creation that's where I have issues....and yes, when I wrote this I saw the dichotomy of AI being someones art, but I'd argue that too, as integrity in art will change unless a huge coalition of artists come together and set forth some "rules". I like rules, they have a place, but I don't favor rules entirely with art because as @Retro mentioned art is subjective. I'm basically saying if you plug in some prompts to make art through AI, that's not the same as spending hours/days creating an oil painting, or hours/days as a sketch artists, or month's creating complicated graphic art. Artists deserve their praise by the complexity of their art and it should be distinguished from AI art.

 

[Retro]

Agreed Tiffs, we should definitely label AI generated art as such, for the reasons you gave.

I think it would be really cool to have AI art competitions though to see just how insane and interesting the results can be.

 

[Tiffany]

Agreed Tiffs, we should definitely label AI generated art as such, for the reasons you gave.

I think it would be really cool to have AI art competitions though to see just how insane and interesting the results can be.

Me too....I've seen some amazing AI artwork as displayed here in NZ and it is truly is amazing, but I'll always be more amazed by pure original art. Both types of art deserve their place, but distinguished from each other...agree!

 

[aussiefooty]

I will block any phone call that sounds like my own voice and report those that do this to police.

 

[Tiffany]

I will block any phone call that sounds like my own voice and report those that do this to police.

I like your style!