I’m pressed for time so I thought I would have ChatGPT write this commentary instead.
You know, the 21st-century way of “phoning it in” when you should really be there in person. But artificial intelligence is still fairly useless when it comes to writing this kind of commentary.
There is a personal pride issue in that I won’t put my name on something machine generated, and that a stunt like that might move the editor/publisher of this fine online publication to physical violence.
It would be justified.
So, this is NOT AI generated prose. It’s original work. AI Technology will make our lives easier. It will make all of us more productive. It’s going to make our lives easier. And yes, it’s going to change the makeup of the workforce.
Jobs that once existed may be replaced with AI technology. People will need to learn new skills. None of this is anything new. It happens all the time. It’s called progress.
In the 19th century there was a movement of English textile workers who opposed automated machinery for making textiles. They organized and conducted raids to destroy the machines, and threatened mill owners and the manufacturers of the equipment. The movement co-opted the name of one of their leaders and became “Luddites”.
Their concerns? Job security and “the quality of the output”.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
There was plenty to do when the jobs changed. The output of those machines quickly improved and is so much better than what came before. But, hey – progress is “bad”, says the Luddites.
So, the modern day “Luddites” are leading a cry to oppose AI, and to regulate it into irrelevance by institutionalizing the status-quo. No change, nothing new to learn. Same old job for your entire life. Of course, they are going to try to convince legislatures to do something about it, because, you know, they never met an opportunity they couldn’t screw up.
Legislatures have a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I hear talk about “guard rails” surrounding AI technology. To what end? Who’s smart enough and all-knowing to devise these “guard rails” without effectively neutering the technology in the meantime? Certainly not our legislators, the most boisterous senators and congressmen have never done anything other than win elections and reach deeply into your pocket. They should leave the technology to those who are capable of making and using it, and to the consumers who will determine what they want and how they want it.
Anything that is done to corral AI is going to slow its use and adoption. AI won’t make us lazy. It will make us more productive, and we have yet to see how it’s going to help society. Just like four decades ago, we didn’t quite know the internet would benefit productivity.
I guarantee that there will be bumps in the road as AI matures. The automobile was a tremendous threat to the buggy whip manufacturers. In its early forms it hurt people and some even died until the technology became a steady and reliable servant.
Air travel, too. Self-driving cars? Ditto.
Deep fakes? Only possible with AI. Restoring historic audio and video to pristine quality? Only practical with AI. AI will change everything that is digital.
Adoption of this groundbreaking technology is not going to be seamless. It’s going to raise a lot of questions.
I graduated from Ashland University 45 years ago, and out of all the courses that I took, only one is unchanged. Just one, and it was a philosophy course,
“Science as a Cultural Force” – it has changed the way many of us look at the world. The people have not changed. The technology has, and how we respond to the technology will shape the future.
I submit that allowing our elected officials to create “guard rails” for this emerging AI technology will put our great nation at a severe disadvantage. AI is going to be great. It’s going to help with things that we could not even imagine.
Embrace it. Great things are afoot.
General Eric Shinseki, 34th Chief of staff of the U.S. Army once said, ”If you don’t like change, you’re going to dislike irrelevance even more.”
