When the luddites smashed loom machines their supporters (including Lord Byron, Ada Lovelaces father) made two arguments in favor of the luddites (I am sure I am simplifying what they said):
- These machines are tossing people out of work NOW and this is BAD for THOSE people. In this assertion they were clearly correct. (`lets just retrain them' only goes so far).
- This is bad for mankind! Machines displacing people will lead to the collapse of civilization! Mankind will be far worse off because of technology. In this assertion I think they were incorrect. That is, I think civilization is better off now because of technology. (If you disagree leave an intelligent polite comment. Realize that just be leaving a comment you are using technology. That is NOT a counterargument. I don't think its even IRONY. Not sure what it is.)
- (This third one is mine and its more of a question) If you take the human element out of things then bad things will happen. There was a TV show where a drone was going to be dropped on something but a HUMAN noticed there were red flowers on the car and deduced it was a wedding so it wasn't dropped. Yeah! But I can equally well see the opposite: a computer program notices things that indicate its not the target that a person would have missed. But of course that would make as interesting a story. More to the point- if we allow on computers to make decisions without the human elemnet, is that good or bad? For grad admissions does it get rid of bias or does it reinforce bias? (See the book Weapons of Math Destruction for an intelligent argument against using programs for, say, grad admissions and other far more important things.)
When Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess there were some articles about how this could be the end of mankind. That's just stupid. For a more modern article on some of the dangers of AI (some reasonable some not) see this article on watson.
It seems to me that AI can do some WELL DEFINED (e.g., chess) very well, and even some not-quite-so-well-defined things (Nat Lang translation) very well, but the notion that they will evolve to be `really intelligent' (not sure that is well defined) and think they are better than us and destroy us seems like bad science fiction (or good science fiction).
Watson can answer questions very very well, Medical diagnosis machines may well be much better than doctors. While this may be bad news for Ken Jennings and for doctors, I don't see it being bad for humanity in the long term. Will we one day look at the fears of AI and see that they were silly--- the machines did not, terminator-style, turn against us? I think so. And of course I hope so.