Using Artificial Intelligence to Resurrect the Famous for Writing Advice
As a part of my Management Information Systems course, we are expected to produce a Ted-Talk concerning Artificial intelligence and utilize an LLM to receive feedback from famous historical figures. Below is the script of my Ted Talk which discusses the negative ramifications of a future entirely reliant on artificial intelligence provided by private sources.
Introduction:
They say that while technology changes, human nature remains the same. One quote from Juvenal, A 2nd-century Roman poet, epitomized that affirmation for me. In his satirical work, Satires, Juvenal postulates “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” or when translated literally, “Who watches the watchers?” In essence, how can people in power be held accountable to operate in everyone’s best interest?
Now let’s fast forward to the modern day where software that runs our hospitals, drives our cars, and makes crucial decisions about our lives is right around the corner and hidden behind a black box. This is the world we’re heading toward with privatized artificial intelligence. As AI integration becomes increasingly interwoven into our daily lives, we need to have a system of checks and balances to ensure that the few aren’t compromising our data, our information, and our rights.
Body:
Let’s start with the problem: When AI models are developed and maintained by a handful of private companies, they become gatekeepers of some of the most powerful technology ever created. These companies decide who gets access, how it’s used, and what changes are made. This creates several key issues.
First, transparency and accountability. When AI models are proprietary, we have no way of knowing how they make decisions. Are they biased? Are they fair? Are they safe? Take the case of facial recognition software. Many of these systems have been shown to have significant biases, particularly against people of color and women. Yet, because they’re developed by private companies, we can’t look inside to understand or fix these biases. Open-source AI would allow anyone to inspect the code, identify problems, and propose solutions, making the technology more transparent and accountable.
Second, innovation and collaboration. In the tech world, we know that open-source software drives innovation. The internet, Linux, and even programming languages like Python thrive because they are open to everyone. When AI is locked behind corporate walls, we limit the potential for breakthroughs. By switching to open-source AI, we allow researchers, developers, and even hobbyists to contribute to and improve these models. Imagine the progress we could make if the best minds from around the world could work together, unrestricted by corporate boundaries.
Third, accessibility and democratization. Right now, the development and use of cutting-edge AI models are concentrated in a few tech giants. This monopolization means that small companies, educational institutions, and developing countries are left behind. Open-source AI can level the playing field, giving everyone access to the tools they need to innovate, educate, and solve local problems. It empowers communities to use AI in ways that directly benefit them, rather than waiting for solutions trickled down from the top.
Now, you might be thinking: What about the risks? Isn’t open-source AI dangerous? The truth is, AI is a double-edged sword whether it’s open or closed. The risks of AI misuse exist, but keeping AI proprietary doesn’t eliminate these risks — it just concentrates them. Open-source AI allows for broader scrutiny and the development of safety protocols by a diverse community of experts.
Conclusion:
Get Kale’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In a world where AI has the power to shape our future, we must ask ourselves: Who should hold that power? Should it be a select few, or should it be the collective? Open-source AI isn’t just about technology; it’s about values. It’s about transparency, collaboration, and democratization. By opening up AI, we ensure that it serves the many, not just the privileged few.
Let’s open the box, share the knowledge, and build a future where AI works for all of us. Thank you.
John Locke:
Famous English philosopher, physician, and father of Liberalism, John Locke, and his advocacy of Rousseau’s Social Contract theory made him an excellent choice to seek advice concerning the subject of unchecked power. To summarize a thorough critique, Locke concurred that AI models could be used as tools of oppression and exploitation if managed by only a few private entities with no system of checks and balances. He agreed that the promotion of open-model AI alternatives allowed democratic opportunities for public scrutiny and the dispersion of consolidated power. However, Locke took note my argument failed to consider some of the challenges that line in implementing an open source system.
One such question Locke posed to me was “How do we ensure that the collective oversight you advocate for does not itself become another form of tyranny of the majority or anarchy, where the most vocal or powerful voices still dominate?”
I think that in an Open-source system, where contributors voluntarily offer coding, data sets, and advice, there is a distinct lack of financial incentives that may motivate privatized AI models to make unilateral decisions that run the risk of infringing on others rights and intellectual property. For example, competition for generative AI to produce the “best” artwork requires an extreme amount of visual data from a myriad of sources. Some of these sources are pieces of genuine artwork, whether it be paintings or photography, that are unwillingly memorized by the algorithm and left uncredited. In an open-source system, artists could willingly offer up their artwork as data in a consensual process. The competitive environment of these large private models, however, leads to an arms race between competitors that makes asking for consent to use an artist’s works infeasible.
Abraham Lincoln:
Our next advisor is the 16th president of the United States and preserver of the Union, Honest Abe. Our conversation covered many of the talking points already presented by John Locke, so I’ll try to be succinct with my summary. Mr. Lincoln pressured me to stress the collective diligence and education of the public to defend democratic principles. This synergizes well with the fact that people will increasingly rely on AI platforms to disseminate information, and we will have a responsibility as curators to verify what we are told.
Squidward J.Q. Tentacles:
Now, some of you might recognize that Mr. Tentacles is neither a historical figure nor is he dead, but more open-minded readers will also notice his status as an intellectual with an unapologetic sincerity and refined taste make him a striking critic.
Squidward makes an insightful comparison between the ethical concerns of monopolized artificial intelligence and his own experience working for Mr. Krabs, who displays an abhorrent avarice that leads him to shun philanthropic activity. Squidward also gifted me with a scathing critique, that gently rebuked my lack of levity and conciseness. I must admit, Mr. Tentacles is correct about one thing; I do tend to write much more than anyone is willing to stomach.
