Photo: Mason C/Unsplash.
The real risks do not stem from AI rebelling against humans and replacing, destroying, or enslaving them, but from a lack of understanding about how this technology works, what we choose to delegate to it, and a lack of judgment, security, or ethics when using it, according to a specialist who defuses irrational fears about this technological revolution.
While reports are circulating about the continued progress and positive impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) in countless fields, numerous scientists, politicians, economists, and even some proponents of this technology warn of the risk that AI could eliminate tens of millions of jobs.
Some predict apocalyptic and extreme scenarios, in which an AI with its own consciousness and focused on its own survival and evolution escapes the control of human beings, and ends up replacing, destroying, or enslaving them.
And the developers themselves admit that, due to the complexity of this technology, which in some cases programs itself, the internal workings and the exact process used by the algorithms of some AI models to make a certain decision or reach certain conclusions are not fully known.
From catastrophism to unfounded fears.
With all these catastrophic predictions, which are gradually taking hold in the collective imagination, it is not surprising that a growing fear of artificial intelligence, the so-called ‘AI phobia’, is emerging in many people, experts warn.
But to what extent are these fears justified? Do predictions that AI could become a threat to humanity, or an out-of-control entity, reflect real possibilities or are they mere fantasy or science fiction theories?
“The real risks and dangers come from a lack of knowledge about how AI works, and also from using this technology without criteria,” says Manuela Delgado (Zaragoza, Spain, 1976), an engineer, innovation consultant and technology communicator specializing in artificial intelligence.
Other potential risks of intelligent systems, in terms of their use by governments, companies and organizations, stem from a lack of security and/or ethics in their implementation, as well as from what is decided to delegate to the machine, according to the specialist (@manueladelgadoinnovacion).
Accelerated implementation and social paradox.
AI has gone from being a topic of discussion in technological circles to becoming an infrastructure of our daily lives, present in mass consumer products, tools that transform the work environment, and algorithms that shape our daily decisions, according to this expert, who delves deeper into these ideas in her book ‘The Secrets of AI’.
Delgado believes that “the speed of this arrival has generated a social paradox: we move erratically between blind fascination and an abstract panic of being replaced, often becoming passive subjects of a revolution that we do not understand,” as she explains in an interview with EFE.
According to this expert, “technology makes sense if it serves to improve people’s lives,” but “only through critical knowledge of this technological revolution will we be able to use AI to our own advantage, harness its potential, and avoid situations of risk and systemic vulnerability, or become mere mannequins of the algorithm.”
The three faces of institutional risk.
According to Delgado, “the real institutional danger has three faces: opacity (automated decisions that even their creators cannot fully explain due to the complex system on which this technology is based); the speed of deployment that is ahead of regulation; and the concentration of power in very few actors who control the infrastructure of these systems.”
This expert emphasizes that “the real risk is not that AI will ‘rebel'”; she believes that “we are far from that happening” and points out that the risk is reflected in the fact that AI is making decisions in different scenarios.
According to her, there are documented cases related to these risks, which “are not hypotheses, they are real facts.”
Seeking a balance between regulation and innovation.
For example, the “COMPAS algorithm, used in US courts to predict recidivism, showed systematic racial bias, while a global e-commerce giant had to withdraw a personnel selection system because it penalized women’s resumes,” Delgado tells EFE.
It points out that, in Spain, “an investigation by the Civio Foundation detected errors and incorrect results in the operation of BOSCO, a computer application used by the Ministry for Ecological Transition to check whether applicants met the requirements for the electricity social bonus.”
She adds that “the Spanish Supreme Court forced the Administration to open part of that code, in a landmark ruling for algorithmic transparency” and that “in Europe, the Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AIR) is focused on protecting identity and the individual.”
“The challenge lies in achieving a balance between regulation and innovation,” Delgado points out, referring then to “another, less discussed risk: the digital literacy gap.”
The ‘Terminator factor’ is just science fiction.
“Those who understand how AI works, receive training, and start using it have an advantage over those who use it blindly or reject it out of fear, and this gap is becoming a new form of social inequality,” she emphasizes.
According to Delgado, “what is science fiction is the idea of an AI with its own will that decides to ‘take control’ in the style of what happens in the ‘Terminator’ film saga,” since “that would require a form of consciousness and intentionality that no current system possesses or is close to possessing.”
“The danger (of AI) does not come from the machine wanting something; it comes from the people and organizations that design and deploy it not taking responsibility,” she emphasizes.
The fantasy of an AI with intentions.
Regarding the use of AI by individuals, workers, and professionals, Delgado believes that “it is fantasy to think that there is an artificial intelligence with personal intentions towards you, that understands you and is your friend, as well as to believe that your professional value will disappear because a machine can generate a text or an image.”
“The value a person brings to a profession or society cannot be eliminated by a machine because then we would be in a scenario where people would be mere mechanical cogs, and that is not the case,” she states emphatically.
“That catastrophic narrative ‘sells’ and promotes fear, but it doesn’t describe what happens in the day-to-day reality of a person who uses these tools judiciously,” she points out.
Delgado argues that “when AI is used with a clear purpose and understanding how to use it, it not only helps us to do more things by being more productive, but also to carry out those tasks in which we contribute the most value, as professionals and as people.”
Fear of change and losing one’s job.
“The risk is not that ‘AI will take your job’ overnight as if it were a monolithic entity,” Delgado points out, explaining that the advancement of this technology in the workplace is more subtle.
The problem lies in the fact that “the progressive automation of specific tasks within a profession will force a retraining of skills that many people are not prepared to face because no one has honestly explained that process to them,” she warns.
From a historical perspective, this engineer points out that “every technological leap —the printing press, electricity, the internet— generated social panic, but in all cases adaptation was possible when there was training and time, and not when there was prohibition or denial.”
Delgado admits that “it is legitimate to be afraid of change,” but emphasizes that “it is the responsibility of organizations and institutions to help overcome that fear in order to move forward.”
The atrophy of personal judgment.
Another risk that this expert considers real and “for which we as individuals bear a great deal of responsibility, is the atrophy of our own judgment, which leads to delegating our critical thinking to an AI tool instead of using it to expand it.”
“If we delegate decisions to machines because we are ‘too lazy’ to think, then who is generating the risk: technology or ourselves?” she asks us to reflect.
According to Delgado, “the time spent exposed to AI is fundamental (to dispel doubts, lack of knowledge and fears), and in some cases, it can even be beneficial.”
For example, “the simple act of speaking aloud reduces the feeling of loneliness, and (dialogue) is something that an AI-powered machine can provide us,” she says.
“That said, talking to a device that answers us can be beneficial, but only for a limited time. If a person overuses or abuses this interaction, the effects are the opposite, as it can lead to isolation,” she warns.
The paradigm of the ‘augmented person’.
To adopt a realistic, positive and fruitful attitude towards AI and to deactivate a possible ‘AI phobia’, Delgado recommends applying the concept of “the augmented person”.
“It’s not about competing with the machine or surrendering to it, but about using it to expand our own judgment, our own voice, and our own work,” she argues.
She points out that “fear of AI is almost always fueled by ignorance.”
That’s why, instead of being afraid or blindly enthusiastic, it’s advisable to delve deeper into digital literacy, since “using AI tools in a practical way, in something small and concrete, is the best antidote to panic and uncritical fascination,” she explains.
She also advises “maintaining our own judgment as a filter, since AI proposes, and you decide. It is not an authority; it is a tool to support your judgment, not a substitute for it.”
Finally, Delgado recommends that digital literacy should not be a solitary endeavor, but rather that we learn about AI in community, sharing doubts and assuming that it is not necessary to have a technical profile to understand the essentials of this technology.”
“Without fear and with sound judgment”: that is the attitude that Manuela Delgado recommends maintaining towards AI.
Daniel Galilea.
EFE – Reports
