As a writer – possibly even a poet – I have concerns about the Large Language Models (LLM) of Artificial Intelligence. As Robert Griffiths wrote recently in PNR 281:
“But even if these programs could train on ‘good’ poetry, it is not clear how, in their production of what is statistically most likely in a word-string, they could produce anything original. It is not obvious that any analysis of the best poetry written before 1915 would have come up with the third line of Prufrock [“Like a patient etherized upon a table” since you ask]. That line was not already waiting in that poetry; it was not even waiting in language.’
Crucially he reminded readers that it arose “from a particular human being’s unique relationship to that poetry and the world.”
This echoed a part of something I wrote about a month ago. I too have concerns about AI producing art, fiction and poems for that very reason. AI used for necessary processes – such as NHS image scanning to speed up analysis and consultations – is a wonderful step forward. Unnecessary AI simply to make money for the lazy is not. In essence my concerns boil down to three issues which I have classified as to do with morality, followed by three further issues:
- Morality 1. The ability to produce (in seconds, apparently) novels or poems or the works of art – forgeries basically – is extraordinarily clever but… why? Apart from the amusement value of the last, who needs them? What value are they/do they have? A novel or a poem (even one of mine) is a representation of the author’s thinking: it has his/her imprint and imprimatur. It is essentially – leaving aside the individual creator – the art/creation of this planet’s life and represents a version of this planet’s thinking/beliefs/understanding of life etc at the point in time at which it was written. An AI creation is just some cleverly jumbled words with no life or meaning other than the lexical. Essentially I would suggest it has no value. Ditto the works of art. This is a waste of resources.
Another thought is that it may seriously mislead readers, uncritical children learning to or having recently learned to read, future generations (that could have serious repercussions).
Additionally is the well-rehearsed issue of copyright infringement as the LLM hoover up any text found on the web. - Morality 2. Like data banks and bit-coin, AI systems use huge amounts of electricity and water. Is this morally acceptable in a time when we are having trouble producing enough/enough cleanly? I suppose I would argue that it is OK for the image scanning type of work but not for creating valueless, gimmicky novels or pictures, or for enhancing – a questionable word – search results or providing a voice response when I ask about the weather – something I could do more easily on my iPhone!
- Morality 3 Finally – and maybe this should have been the first of the three – AI systems have no inherent morals or ethics. Arguably, neither do many of our leaders who make choices on our behalf, but at least they exist in the same bubble of morality as I do. Remember Asimov’s laws for robots – basically do no harm to humans – do AI systems have even that basic ‘morality’ built in? AI is (I think) used in legal as well as medical work – what moral and ethical safeguards are there. (Even at a lesser level than morality/ethics, can we be sure that the rules built in are the same ones that a judge would make?) Can the system vary them? Should it be able to? Should we – the general public – know what they are? Who decides on the morals/ethics?
- Security is definitely an issue – not just in government or armed forces systems. It does need to be addressed IN EVERY APPLICATION of AI. That probably means a minimum level should be set and regulated. (By someone!)
- Definition: what do we mean by AI? The term sweeps in general robotics – as on a production/assembly line – which probably have very limited intelligence beyond recognising parts, etc) through image recognition and control to Large Language Models which swallow and assimilate and ‘learn’ from huge, uncontrolled and unfiltered vats of text. Without permission. Without (so far as I am aware) any human interference, value adding or ‘explaining’. Shouldn’t there be some understood vocabulary or classification or Linnaean taxonomy beyond/below the ambidextrous AI? And shouldn’t we all (have the opportunity to) understand it.
- Choice. In many cases AI is being foisted on us whether we will or not. If I buy a new car my interaction with it may be largely by via ChatGP (I may ask out loud the navigation system to re-route me to a shop and it may reply, But that shop is currently closed, I’ll take you to…). Already search engines may incorporate it. What else does? Who knows? I believe that users should have the right to know – and have the ability built into the interface without having to argue with a nameless bit of AI on the phone! – to decide whether we want ‘ordinary, vanilla’ search or enhanced AI search. After all when all is said and done what is AI doing in the search that the search engine hasn’t been doing (more or less) (more less satisfactorily) for years? Essentially, I – as a human being – want to remain in control!
And – another aside – shouldn’t users be able to decide whether the thing on the other end of a help line is human or artificial?
