iStock To the Editor:
In the article “On the Speculative Terminology Surrounding AI,” the author points out that in news reports and scholarly papers, words and the images they evoke have been misapplied [1]. I agree with the author’s critique of the serious consequences of such misapplication, but I would like to supplement that critique by acknowledging these consequences while also highlighting the positive roles such misapplication can play.
In fact, metaphorical descriptions of artificial intelligence technologies, such as “hallucination” and “self-learning,” are admittedly rhetorical devices with exaggerative characteristics. Nevertheless, we cannot deny their significance in arousing public interest and attention. Indeed, compared with precise descriptions, such metaphorical language carries an orientation toward technological democratization: the public can straightforwardly grasp certain technological facts without needing a rigorous understanding of the relevant specialized theories [2]. Of course, we do not deny the misunderstandings that may arise, but relative to complete ignorance, descriptions with a certain degree of exaggeration are more conducive to drawing public attention to technological developments and encouraging broader participation in ethical debates.
If we abandon or restrict discussions of the singularity or superintelligence, and if this event were to transition from prediction to reality, our ethical and policy preparations would be insufficient, and the public, lacking prior expectation, would fall into even greater panic.
However, the expressions that pose the greatest threat are those concerning “superintelligent” or the “singularity,” which provoke widespread panic and may trigger fervent enthusiasm for technology. Such fervor can be channeled into attacks, economic speculation, and fraud, from which some may profit. But we observe a paradox here: we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of such a technological singularity; indeed, it may occur [3]. If we abandon or restrict discussions of the singularity or superintelligence, and if this event were to transition from prediction to reality, our ethical and policy preparations would be insufficient, and the public, lacking prior expectation, would fall into even greater panic. Therefore, what is truly needed is a more in-depth consideration of the costs of two opposing views: preparing amid panic versus falling into panic without preparation. Although both positions have their legitimacy, profiting from panic is illegitimate, and we need to pay attention to such behaviors and promote the formulation of relevant policies.
We fully endorse the author’s view that even if artificial intelligence technologies are not as we describe them, they are still sufficient to reshape human society in multiple dimensions. The rhetorical expressions used by the public regarding AI technologies also participate in this reshaping. Beyond focusing on the actual impact of these technologies, ethicists should likewise pay attention to the possible consequences arising from the narratives surrounding AI.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the National College Students’ Innovative Entrepreneurial Training Plan Program under Grant D202511122253306064.
Author Information
Yuhong Wang is studying at North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China. He serves as a reviewer for journals such as Artificial Intelligence Review, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, AI and Society, and AI and Ethics, among others. Email: 13367696568@163.com.
________________
To read this complete article, including references, click HERE.
__________________
JOIN SSIT