In his interesting opinion article (Robots sacked, screenings shut down: a new movement of luddites is rising up against AI, 27 July), Ed Newton-Rex misses one of the most serious concerns about artificial intelligence: its surveillance potential. Governments have always spied on their subjects/citizens: technology multiplies their powers of spying.
In his novel 1984, George Orwell had the authorities install a two-way telescreen system in every party member’s home, and in all workplaces and public spaces. This allowed Big Brother to monitor individuals’ actions and conversations, while he himself remained invisible.
Today’s digital control systems operating through electronic tracking devices and voice and facial recognition systems are simply Big Brother’s control devices brought up to date. They empower commercial platforms and intelligence services alike to “mine” and “scrape” the information about our thoughts and habits, which we ourselves provide. This enables them to predict and thus control our behaviour.
No one has yet suggested an effective method of protecting privacy against the enhanced power of state intrusion.
Unless this is done, politics will wither and die, because a well-functioning public sphere presupposes the existence of a protected private sphere, in which people can pause and take thought without fear of arrest or detention.
Robert Skidelsky
House of Lords
Re Ed Newton-Rex’s excellent article on not always welcoming artificial intelligence, there is a huge difference between, say, AI assisting in medical diagnosis, mathematics or stadium design, and AI used in cultural creativity. Although there is good art and writing that incorporates AI, the problem arises when systems simply churn out stuff that just mimics (bad) art, literature etc, at the behest of those apparently ignorant of both, who hold up the meaningless results of AI barrel-scraping and pretend they’re adequate as art.
The corollary: they must then scorn contemporary art and literature to justify their claiming cultural significance for their own value-added insults to intelligence. They risk dumbing us down until we accept that AI is indeed as good as we are at creative stuff. This does great harm to the arts and to “proper” AI, lending new meaning to the phrase “two cultures”.
Brian Reffin Smith
Berlin, Germany
Mr Newton-Rex is right, but even he overlooks the principle threat posed by artificial intelligence: its advocates seek to relieve us of the tiresome need to think – the sapiens bit of our biological name Homo sapiens. Freed of the tiresome burden of thought we are becoming passive, pupa – like consumers of video entertainment: Homo supine?
Michael Heaton
Warminster, Wiltshire
