In Josh Tyrangiel's commentary, "You hate AI for all the – ferdig modellbesvarelse for norskfaget på ifingo.
📋 Exam Question
Read the text and write your response to the task below.
Recommended length for this task is approximately 200–300 words. Remember to read the entire text. You may have to scroll.
The text below is an excerpt from a commentary written by Josh Tyrangiel for the Washington Post in September 2023.
Comment on what the message of the text is and briefly explain how this message is communicated. Use relevant terminology and refer to examples from the text in your answer.
You hate AI for all the right reasons. Now reconsider.
- So, who’s excited for AI!
- I am? Maybe?
I’ll be serving as The [Washington] Post’s regular AI columnist for the next year, and the assignment is a relief. For me. I’ve spent months diving into the science, applications, promise and fears of artificial intelligence, and while I’m increasingly confident that species death is neither imminent nor likely, it’s much less clear what life is about to look like. I’m grateful not to have to ride the roller coaster alone.
It’s possible we’re at the dawn of an incredible era of toolmaking. […] AI tools are already predicting the spread of infectious disease, detecting guns in schools, helping the speechless speak and slashing energy consumption. There are brilliant people who say this is kid stuff. Soon everyone will have a customized knowledge assistant. The elimination of drudgery and loneliness is coming. Climate change can be mitigated. Rare diseases are on the clock.
Other equally brilliant people go straight to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” Their scenarios cover everything from an AI-manufactured extinction-level virus to societal decay as jobs disappear, inequality becomes permanent, authoritarian states tighten their grip — and meaning is drained from our existence. Before any of that arrives, we’ve got great leaps forward in AI-generated porn, fraud and misinformation to look forward to.
The doomers and Utopians both speak a little too insistently. It might have something to do with the money at stake — as much as $4.4 trillion in estimated annual corporate benefit from generative AI alone, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. This is not the Manhattan Project or the space race, when the big brains wore government badges. Many of the best AI scientists hold university chairs while also cashing checks from the world’s largest tech companies. Now multiply those potential competing interests by the restless mind of Mark Zuckerberg.
When Zuck open-sources Meta’s Llama 2 chatbot — inviting anyone to play with its innards — is he an optimist democratizing AI (“Let’s get building!”)? Or does he know the fastest way to catch up to ChatGPT is for people to hack away on his platform for free, even if some of them get Llama 2 to cough up recipes for nukes?
Let’s begin again, this time with creation. All of the software we’ve ever used was engineered to work backward from an outcome. Its creators wanted to help you find a webpage or play a game or operate a laptop. Perhaps you’ve noticed that the major AI chatbots arrived with almost no user documentation or instructions. A lump of clay doesn’t come with instructions, either. That’s what makes this moment unique — and so worthy of species-level #1 foam-finger pride. We humans have created a tool for potentially infinite tasks. Its imperfections are ours to solve — and its powers still ours to shape. …