Any result produced by current AI is suspect until proven otherwise.
Any result comes at very high relative cost in terms of computing time and energy consumed.
AI is the polar opposite of traditional logic based computing --- instead of highly accurate and reliable facts at low cost, you get unreliable opinions at high cost.
There are valid uses cases for current AI but it is not a universal replacement for logic based programming that we all know and love --- not even close. Suggesting otherwise smacks of snake oil and hype.
Legal liability for AI pronouncements is another on-going concern that remains to be fully addressed in the courts. One example: An AI chatbot accused a pro basketball player of vandalism due to references found of him "throwing bricks" during play.
> AI is the polar opposite of traditional logic based computing --- instead of highly accurate and reliable facts at low cost, you get unreliable opinions at high cost.
In other words: Instead of buying a simple hammer for nailing a plank, all the marketing is about buying a bulldozer in a foreign country that they will ship to you, and in the process of using it for hammering the nail, you destroy the whole house.
Any result comes at very high relative cost in terms of computing time and energy consumed.
AI is the polar opposite of traditional logic based computing --- instead of highly accurate and reliable facts at low cost, you get unreliable opinions at high cost.
There are valid uses cases for current AI but it is not a universal replacement for logic based programming that we all know and love --- not even close. Suggesting otherwise smacks of snake oil and hype.
Legal liability for AI pronouncements is another on-going concern that remains to be fully addressed in the courts. One example: An AI chatbot accused a pro basketball player of vandalism due to references found of him "throwing bricks" during play.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4546063