There are endless examples available for sophisticated AI projects which have no practical value. The paradox situation is, that the engineers who have developed software and hardware components are not aware of these limitations or they are ignoring the missing use case. Here is a short list:
- hospital robots
- self driving cars
- Chess AI engines
- generative language models based on neural networks
- Q&A systems
- ingame AI for the 15 puzzle game, Tetris and pong
- pick&place robots
The perhaps oldest example for a technical fully working AI which has at the same time no practical value is a chess AI. With the advent of the first chess playing software it was a promise that these programs can replace human players and that they are useful for human player to learn how to play better. Many chess AI were created over the decades and endless amount of books are available which are explaining in detail how to use them and how to create a chess AI from scratch. At the same time, none of these projects has concrete practical application. In a chess tournament played by human players, the chess AI installed ont he laptop of the player isn't used.
The same situation is there for more advanced AI systems like Q&A programs and hospital robots. In the self understanding these tools have endless amount of applications. But in the reality there is no concrete example available in which a hospital is using a robot or a Q&A system has helped to find a diagnosis for a problem.
In most cases the lack of practical applications is ignored. What is done instead is to improve the original project. That means version 1.0 of the costly Q&A software is useless but instead of asking the reason why, the next version 2.0 is created.
The general explanation why AI is researched is because it helps to improve the efficiency. The idea is, that humans are not powerful enough to solve a task and should be replaced by machines which are according to the bias – are more powerful and less costly. The interesting situation is, that such a claim was never proofed. If chess engines are so much better than humans why nobody is using them? If a hospital robot doesn't need sleep and never complains about an order, why is the robot not available in a hospital.
Are chess player, the existing hospital employees or language experts not capable in seeing the value of artifical intelligence? The more sense making explanation is that something with the AI is wrong which prevents that it has a practical value. The main ideology behind AI and robotics is to speculate about the future. The researchers are programming a biped robot and the story is, that such a robot will be able in the future to do useful tasks. Artificial intelligence is not about technology but about the myth of improved efficiency in a possible future. People like to listen to a narrative in which they are replaced by more intelligent robots and they want to know how this can be realized in detail.
A closer look into the narrative “Robots are replacing humans” that it is unrealistic. Before it makes sense how future robots will replace humans it should be described firstly how existing technology can replace humans. It is important to ask how exactly a Q&A software or a robot build in the last year will replace humans. How many of them and where exactly and what is the amount of reduced costs.
If the question is asked in detail nobody can answer it. What is given as a possible answer is, that the robot available yet was not powerful enough and a new model is build by the researcher which is not available in the next 4 years. And in the meantime the normal human workers are doing the same job like in the past and the costs are of course the same or have even increased.
No comments:
Post a Comment