Rethinking How AI And Humans Interact To Get The Best Of Both
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 05. 2024
- This conversation between an MIT PHD and a professor covers what human design is, why it’s important in deploying effective AI models, and how we have to think deeply about how to establish trust in AI. This conversation took place at Imagination In Action’s ‘Forging the Future of Business with AI’ Summit in April 2024.
0:00 Introduction
2:50 Where Can AI Be Applied In Society?
7:20 Engineering And Practical Ways To Build Trust In AI
12:25 Education: What Scares People About Technology?
14:58 Intelligence Experts Need More Positive Use Cases
18:37 What Advancements In AI Will Change Our World Next?
Subscribe to FORBES: czcams.com/users/Forbes?s...
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes newsletters: newsletters.editorial.forbes.com
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Forbes covers the intersection of entrepreneurship, wealth, technology, business and lifestyle with a focus on people and success.
It's inspiring to see Professor Mars and her team prioritizing the human aspect of AI development, focusing on using technology to benefit humanity rather than just pursuing AGI. 💡 Personalized AI systems that understand context could indeed revolutionize how we interact with technology, fostering a more present and supportive digital experience.
He was a great interviewer with lots of questions that kept the conversation flowing and really showed her knowledge to open our minds, but I'm confused as to why she's not looking at him. Who is she talking to?
this guy looking directly into her soul, quite uncomfortable if i were her
I like this style of video
The real AI breakthrough in 2024 is Lavender.
The guy looks like a serious anime fanboy.
He has something to fall back on.
Somehow rude interviewer saying "right" loudly all the time instead of leaving the interviewee talk freely, besides staring at her all the time, very weird
It was like he was eager to share the spotlight all the time
Would be nice to have some further training here
The Acadamy is dead meat
The issue is all these academics are talking about how we should use AI and what limits we should place on it. But do they genuinely influence the businesses that will create these products? Or how they are going to implement them? At the end of the day, corporations are going to decide these things, and consumers are going to drive AI's consumption. Just because studies show that people get dumber when they accept what the AI says doesn't mean that information will change what people do with AI. There are tons of studies about how social media affects children and young adults, but did that make any meaningful change in the practices of social media companies? Does it have a meaningful impact on how people consume social media?
Did she say we need to teach people how to think critically about what AI is telling them? 😂😂😂😂😂 wow that's some pipe dream.
Good luck. Because it looks like a losing battle to me.
MIT/Stanford/Carnegie Mellon/Ivy League schools do influence engineering corporations and private tech companies BUT most academics are not at those universities so they do not have any influence
@@thinkingcitizen I agree 100% about the influence of these top schools on corporations. That is undoubtedly true.
But her discussion bothered me because she first scoffed at the idea of a utopia and then described her version of a utopia in human and AI interactions. It seems disingenuous.
I just watched one of the other panels and a panelist from a big data company said that they were able to gather data from social media and predict up to six months in advance whether or not someone would commit suicide. But clinicians refused to adopt the technology. It's not a one-to-one comparison, but where were the academics when this was developed? Where were the critcal thinking skills of these "highly educated" people then? That technology that could be a game changer for society. It could be savings people's lives. But, and I quote; "It's on the shelf." I just think her expectations are unrealistic.
Sukmid!k