There is no more fashionable phrase in the modern world than "artificial intelligence".
Moreover, this phrase is especially fashionable among those who do not understand anything either in digital technologies, or in discrete mathematics, or in methods for processing large amounts of data.
And also has no idea that the intellect cannot be artificial, because the intellect is either there or it is not.
And entropy and heating of the environment in any case is.
Yes, here are some examples.
OpenAI has created a GPT-3 neural network trained on 600 gigabytes of text data.
The goal was to create an algorithm capable of generating any texts, from the works of long-dead writers to scientific articles.
And then a Swedish researcher named Almira Osmanovich Tunstrem asked GPT-3 to write a scientific paper about herself.
That is about GPT-3.
Well, she wrote.
After that, this article was sent to a scientific journal.
And now attention, the question: why was all this done?
No, there are no questions for scientists - the meaning of scholarship is to explore the unexplored.
But what scientific thought and humanity as a whole received as a result of this experiment was only the heat released as a result of the operation of computers.
And nothing more.
I suppose other scientists will study the release of this heat and also write some scientific work.
With the release of heat, of course.
Or here's another case for you.
British scientists (hussars, be silent!) have developed an algorithm, attention, a fair distribution of earned money.
Well, that is, people invested somewhere, the business burned out, and now it's time to share.
And so scientists have created an algorithm that (I quote) "essentially implements in practice the democratic mechanism for choosing an economic policy that best reflects the preferences of society."
Needless to say, there are no more terrible words than "society's preferences."
Which Polygraph Poligrafovich Sharikov formulated the devil knows when.
And all these modern social democracies, with their progressive taxation, are in their purest form Sharikov's heritage.
Everything must be shared.
However, sorry for the old grumbling.
There were three distribution models.
According to the first (egalitarian), all profits were divided equally.
The second (libertarian) assumed the distribution of profits according to the investments made.
And the third (libertarian-egalitarian) ordered to divide the money depending on what share of their funds was invested by one or another participant.
Well, that is the same social democracy in which the rich always owe the poor simply because the poor man himself could not.
Do I need to say which model won as a result of a complex experiment?
Of course, the third.
Most unfair.
And in the end, we have what we have - artificial intelligence confirmed the main social democratic imperative, while spending electricity and once again heating the atmosphere.
In my life, to admit, there was also a similar case.
I decided to take some kind of American test of professional orientation.
And for two hours I answered questions in order to find out that it would be nice for me to become a programmer.
Right there in the second year of the institute, where I studied to be a programmer.
Thank you, of course, but then there was no global warming and there was no one to pull me up.
However, today we have a champion entry.
China has developed an algorithm that can test a person's loyalty to the Communist Party.
A special device reads facial expressions and even some "brain waves" during political information, after which the program determines whether the communist is loyal or not.
Because the ideal communist (quote) "should be grateful to the party, listen to the party and follow the party."
But if a person follows the party, listens to it and is grateful to it (due to career growth and all that), then this is already evident.
Without any algorithms.
Why, then, do we need algorithms that state what is already obvious?
Not to mention the fact that the party probably has special bodies that monitor loyalty.
Now they have to be fired.
And here's the thing: fired people will remain people.
And they will continue to heat the atmosphere in the same way that they have heated it before.
And instead of them, a complex computer system will now work, which will heat up this very atmosphere in addition to those fired people.
And waste electricity.
It's like in that story with Greta Thunberg, who traveled from Europe to America on a high-tech sailing yacht, the crew of which returned from America to Europe by plane.
Everyone wrote about it then.
But few people wrote about the fact that a high-tech sailing yacht is also all electric.
And any spent energy increases entropy.
And warms up the atmosphere.
And there is only one way to save nature - this is, as the robot Bender said, "kill all people."
However, the robot also consumes energy.
Therefore, he must also be killed.
However, the idea is not at all new.
Back in the early 1990s, the "Church of Euthanasia" was created in Boston, preaching suicide, abortion, cannibalism and homosexual sexual intercourse - in general, everything, as a result of which the population of the Earth would decrease, not increase.
“Save the planet, kill yourself” was their main slogan.
But it would be worth starting, of course, with everything high-tech and meaningless.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.