Weak artificial intelligence explained

Weak artificial intelligence (weak AI) is artificial intelligence that implements a limited part of the mind, or, as narrow AI,[1] [2] [3] is focused on one narrow task.

Weak AI is contrasted with strong AI, which has been defined variously as:

Scholars such as Antonio Lieto have argued that the current research on both AI and cognitive modelling are perfectly aligned with the weak-AI hypothesis (that should not be confused with the "general" vs "narrow" AI distinction) and that the popular assumption that cognitively inspired AI systems espouse the strong AI hypothesis is ill-posed and problematic since "artificial models of brain and mind can be used to understand mental phenomena without pretending that that they are the real phenomena that they are modelling"[4] (as, on the other hand, implied by the strong AI assumption).

Narrow AI can be classified as being “limited to a single, narrowly defined task. Most modern AI systems would be classified in this category.”[5] Narrow means the robot or computer is strictly limited to only being able to solve one problem at a time. Strong AI is conversely the opposite. Strong AI is closer to the human brain. This is all believed to be the case by philosopher John Searle. This idea of strong AI is also controversial. Searle believes that the Turing test (created by Alan Turing during WW2, originally called the Imitation Game, used to test if a machine is as intelligent as a human) is not accurate or appropriate for testing strong AI.[6]

Weak AI versus strong AI

The differences between weak AI vsersus strong AI are not widely cataloged at the moment. Weak AI is often associated with basic technology like voice-recognition software such as Siri or Alexa. Whereas strong AI is not fully implemented or testable yet, it is only really fantasized about in movies or popular culture media.[7]

It seems that one approach to AI moving forward is one of an assisting or aiding role to humans. There are some sets of data or numbers that even we humans cannot fully process or understand as quickly as computers can, so this is where AI will play a helping role for us.[8]

Impact

See main article: Workplace impact of artificial intelligence. Some commentators think narrow AI could be dangerous because of this "brittleness" and fail in unpredictable ways. Narrow AI could cause disruptions in the electric grid, damage nuclear power plants, cause global economic problems, and misdirect autonomous vehicles.[1]

Examples

Some examples of narrow AI are AlphaGo,[9] self-driving cars, robot systems used in the medical field, and diagnostic doctors. Narrow AI systems are sometimes dangerous if unreliable. Medicines could be incorrectly sorted and distributed. Also, medical diagnoses can ultimately have serious and sometimes deadly consequences if the AI is faulty or biased.[10] Another issue with narrow AI, currently, is that behavior that it follows can become inconsistent.[11] It could be difficult for the AI to grasp complex patterns and get to a solution that works reliably in various environments.

Simple AI programs have already worked their way into our society unnoticed. Autocorrection for typing, speech recognition for speech-to-text programs, and vast expansions in the data science fields are examples.[12] As much as narrow and relatively general AI is slowly starting to help out societies, they are also starting to hurt them as well. AI had already unfairly put people in jail, discriminated against women in the workplace for hiring, taught some problematic ideas to millions, and even killed people with automatic cars.[13] AI might be a powerful tool that can be used for improving our lives, but it could also be a dangerous technology with the potential for things to get out of hand.  

Social media

Facebook, and other similar social media platforms, have been able to figure out how to use AI and machine learning, or more specifically narrow AI, to predict how people will react to being shown certain images. Narrow AI systems have been able to identify what users will engage with, based on what they post, following the patterns or trends.[14]

Twitter has started to have more advanced AI systems to figure out how to identify narrower AI forms and detect if bots may have been used for biased propaganda, or even potentially malicious intentions. These AI systems do this through filtering words and creating different layers of conditions based on what AI has had implications for in the past, and then detecting if that account may be a bot or not.[15]

TikTok uses its "For You" algorithm to determine a user's interests very quickly through analyzing patterns in what videos the user initially chooses to watch. This narrow AI system uses patterns found between videos to determine what video should be shown next including the duration, who has shared or commented on it already, and music played in the videos. The "For You" algorithm on TikTok is so accurate, that it can figure out exactly what a user has an interest in or even really loves, in less than an hour.[16]

References

  1. Web site: Dvorsky . George . How Much Longer Before Our First AI Catastrophe? . Gizmodo . November 27, 2021 . April 1, 2013.
  2. Web site: Muehlhauser . Luke . Ben Goertzel on AGI as a Field . Machine Intelligence Research Institute . November 27, 2021 . October 18, 2013.
  3. Web site: Chalfen . Mike . The Challenges Of Building AI Apps . TechCrunch . November 27, 2021 . October 15, 2015.
  4. Book: Lieto, Antonio . Cognitive Design for Artificial Minds . Routledge, Taylor & Francis . 2021 . 9781138207929 . London, UK . 85.
  5. Book: Bartneck . Christoph . An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI . Lütge . Christoph . Wagner . Alan . Welsh . Sean . 2021 . Springer International Publishing . 978-3-030-51109-8 . SpringerBriefs in Ethics . Cham . en . 10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4. 224869294 .
  6. Liu . Bin . 2021-03-28 . "Weak AI" is Likely to Never Become "Strong AI", So What is its Greatest Value for us? . cs.AI . 2103.15294.
  7. Web site: Kerns . Jeff . February 15, 2017 . What's the Difference Between Weak and Strong AI? . ProQuest. .
  8. Book: LaPlante . Alice . Solving Quality and Maintenance Problems with AI . Maliha . Balala . O'Reilly Media, Inc. . 2018 . 9781491999561.
  9. Web site: Edelman . Gary Grossman . 2020-09-03 . We're entering the AI twilight zone between narrow and general AI . 2024-03-16 . VentureBeat . en-US.
  10. Szocik . Konrad . Jurkowska-Gomułka . Agata . 2021-12-16 . Ethical, Legal and Political Challenges of Artificial Intelligence: Law as a Response to AI-Related Threats and Hopes . World Futures . en . 1–17 . 10.1080/02604027.2021.2012876 . 245287612 . 0260-4027.
  11. Book: Kuleshov . Andrey . Prokhorov . Sergei . 2019 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Applications and Innovations (IC-AIAI) . Domain Dependence of Definitions Required to Standardize and Compare Performance Characteristics of Weak AI Systems . September 2019 . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9007318 . Belgrade, Serbia . IEEE . 62–623 . 10.1109/IC-AIAI48757.2019.00020 . 978-1-7281-4326-2. 211298012 .
  12. Earley . Seth . 2017 . The Problem With AI . IT Professional . 19 . 4 . 63–67 . 10.1109/MITP.2017.3051331 . 9382416 . 1520-9202.
  13. Book: Anirudh . Koul . Practical Deep Learning for Cloud, Mobile, and Edge . Siddha . Ganju . Meher . Kasam . O'Reilly Media . 2019 . 9781492034865.
  14. Kaiser . Carolin . Ahuvia . Aaron . Rauschnabel . Philipp A. . Wimble . Matt . 2020-09-01 . Social media monitoring: What can marketers learn from Facebook brand photos? . Journal of Business Research . en . 117 . 707–717 . 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.017 . 203444643 . 0148-2963.
  15. Shukla . Rachit . Sinha . Adwitiya . Chaudhary . Ankit . 28 February 2022 . TweezBot: An AI-Driven Online Media Bot Identification Algorithm for Twitter Social Networks . Electronics . en . 11 . 5 . 743 . 10.3390/electronics11050743 . 2079-9292. free .
  16. Web site: Hyunjin . Kang . September 2022 . AI agency vs. human agency: understanding human-AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement . 2022-11-08 . academic.oup.com.