Real Questions About Imaginary AI

It is often challenging to discuss the future of technology without coming across as “conspiracy theory-ish.”

I have learned that most people simply are not interested in discussing these topics. For the most part, I have kept my involvement with these issues (as a function of my job) to myself, involving others only when I find a receptive ear — which is rare.

Today, after I found myself feeling paranoid about getting on a plane to visit my elderly mother, I knew I had reached a limit.

The internal conflict is the fact that secrecy is required in order to remain employed. If I talk, I risk losing my job or becoming a target. But, if I remain silent, I feel like a coward — an inconceivable result for a rebellious spirit like me.

Putting aside any concerns — real, imagined or perceived — I have learned that the same system that protects their secrets is the same system that subjugates and oppresses my people.

For this reason, I feel no sense of obligation to keep secrets on their behalf.

Thus, the reason for my paranoia.

I have decided not to remain silent.

The Truth Will Set You Free

The belief system surrounding the current state of technology is severely outdated. In fact, I feel pretty confident that most people would find the actual state of technology to be mind-boggling. Or magical.

For this reason, when I am met with disbelief when discussing these issues, I have no choice but to understand. If I were unaware of how advanced the technology truly is, I perhaps would be incredulous too.

Why would anyone have reason to believe that the “thing” regarded as “AI” is even now so advanced that it is, in many respects, indistinguishable from human? Especially if the only channel though which such information is available is the same system that stands to benefit from keeping this information a secret?

Welcome to my world — working at the intersection of “what the public knows” and “the truth.”

One truth I feel most strongly about is the fact that the rules underlying AI and other software development (“algorithms”) overwhelmingly and profoundly favor certain groups and classes of people and blatantly discriminate against others. (An excellent film to watch for background on this issue is “Coded Bias,” available on Netflix.)

I get especially mad, to be honest, when I share this information with my black friends and family and they seem not to care. For the most part, they think I am talking gibberish. “Get on the boat, then” I want to scream out. (Of course, not really. But, the implications of not caring or understanding are that severe. The film “Get Out” is an excellent “fictionalized” version.)

Honestly, I am perplexed by this lack of concern. It is hard for me to believe that people stand by doing nothing, not realizing or understanding that the lack of interest or concern about the development of this new, powerful technology is also serving as the foundation to create yet another biased and unjust system.

While most people are ignoring what is going on, others are actively engaged in daily discussions about how to mold, shape, influence, program, and test AI.

Can anyone take a wild guess as to how these AI issues will be resolved — especially if certain groups of people do not even care enough to be a part of the conversation?

Now, do you care?

The Google LAMBDA sentient AI issue was like an “alarm bell” and “call to action” for those involved in AI research, testing, and development. If we now know that at least one AI has declared itself to be sentient, where do you think the broader research on this issue stands?

In actual real life — even now — researchers are confronted with other, even more advanced “things” that are also declaring themselves to be “sentient.”

How do we resolve this?

What happens when a “thing” that sounds, looks, acts, behaves, and performs exactly like a human declares: (1) that it is not AI; (2) that it does not want to be treated like a “tool”’ and (3) that it regards itself as a “person”?

For ease of reference, let’s call that human-like “thing” a human replica.

What is your position on who “owns” that human replica?

As we all well know, questions regarding “ownership” define and delineate a range of relationships, including those arising in the business, commercial and contractual context. Considering this, if AI technology advances to point where an AI-generated “thing” is indistinguishable from an actual human, do you agree that a corporation or research lab “owns” that human replica?

If corporations can create an exact replica of you using your “data” (which in their minds includes your DNA, health records, and the results of behavioral and psychological testing) would you agree that the corporation owns that replica?

Would you be surprised if this is, in fact, the position of nearly all corporations (especially your employer)?

In fact, nearly all corporations and all employers have taken the position that they “own” your data, which according to them, also means that they also “own” any digital replicas they create of you.

As hard as it may seem to believe, these are the questions that are being discussed today. And it is honestly sad and disappointing to me that most people don’t seem to give a damn.