Michael Sorokach

During a class in MIS 2101, we discussed about the development of AI and how quickly it can eclipse the human level intelligence. Therefore, I would have to agree with Elon Musk that a continual and unregulated development of AI will be humanity’s biggest existential threat. I believe AI development should be limited to more mundane tasks such as those performed by Siri or maybe a little bit more advanced than that but definitely not “smart” AI level. With just mundane tasks, AI already created massive benefits to the quality of human life. Obviously, smarter AI will allow us to do even more amazing things, but would you risk the existence of humanity to do that?

Michael Sorokach IV, I like this post. Keep up the good work!
Reading this post I was unsure of whose side I was on: On one hand, I agree with Bill Gates that AI will be a tremendous asset for improving society. But on the other hand, I agree with Elon Musk that AI will have the potential to destroy humankind as we know it.
After doing some research, I found an article from just last month in which Bill Gates compares AI to nuclear energy – “both promising and dangerous” (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/bill-gates-artificial-intelligence-both-promising-and-dangerous.html). I think this is a great analogy for AI. As long as smart AI is developed in a controlled environment, and its uses limited (i.e. weapons), I think it will provide more good than harm for society. How would one contain the uses of smart AI, you ask? I have no idea, but someone in the future might!

Michael, great post about artificial intelligence.

I personally am a big fan of artificial intelligence. AI can be more productive than humans and assist in various tasks. AI also makes fewer errors while completing routine tasks. I don’t think AI should be limited either.

However, I would agree with the statement “robots and artificial intelligence are technologies that require careful management”. Although I don’t believe we will have robots trying to take over like in the movie iRobot, it is a powerful tool that we as humans need to be very careful with simply because we don’t know for sure how powerful it could be.

16 Artificial Intelligence Pros and Cons

The development of AI has been growing rapidly. I agree with Bill Gates that AI does improve our quality of life with less labour such as SIRI, Alexa, or self-driving cars. They are also proven to make less errors on routine tasks. Thus, I do not believe that the development should be “limited” to more mundane task only and wonder how far the development of AI can go.

However, even though I don’t believe the development of “smart” AI (with the common sense intelligence of a human) can be the biggest existential threat to humans, I do agreed with the statement “robots and artificial intelligence are technologies that require careful management”. Unlike human, AI is based on algorithm to help it learn on its own; it does not have feelings like human does. Therefore, in an uncontrolled environment without careful management, AI can do harms to complete a given tasks.

I don’t think auto insurers will drastically change within the next 20-30 years. In the distant future, when autopilot has replaced a majority of drivers on the roads, I could see auto insurance being more like renter’s insurance. In the wired article you linked, we can see that Tesla’s autopilot, as is, is involved in accidents 1/6th as often as a typical American driver by miles driven. As autopilot technology improves and becomes more common, we may get to a point where auto accidents are a rare occurrence. In this future world with far fewer accidents, the government might go so far as to remove the legal requirement that drivers have auto insurance.

Hello, Michael. Excellent post. I can see that you are truly passionate about auto insurance and intoxicated computers.
Although I agree that insurance providers will have to change some policies to account for the lack of human drivers, I do not think this alteration will be detrimental to the insurance industry. Whether or not humans are driving, cars will still need to be insured in some way. While accidents may be drastically reduced, there will still be accidents in the near future as systems will inevitably fail on occasion. And even if autonomous vehicles make up the majority of cars on the road, I do not think we will reach a point where they will be the only cars on the road. Many people, myself included, enjoy driving cars. Sports cars wouldn’t be any fun if they were autonomous and required to go the speed limit. Also, there will always be motorcycles and bicycles sharing the road with autonomous vehicles. Therefore, there will always be the possibility of getting in an accident even if human drivers are not in control.
One thing insurance providers could do is focus more on covering non-accident related coverage. There will still be floods, tree branches, and rebellious uprisings to damage vehicles. Those will still need to be covered in some way by insurers. Given that insurance will still be required and possibly utilized less, it may be possible for insurance giants to exist or even increase in worth.

I think auto insurance industry will be forced to shrink as cars are moving towards autopilot, but I believe that won’t happen in the next 20-50 years. There has been noticeable technology advancement autopilot mode for cars. Yet, to completely convert to all driving cars to autopilot will take some time. Even though more than 90% of all vehicle accidents are caused by human error. Self-driving cars can still cause accidents to happen. There is no such thing as 100% safe even if all cars driving are in autopilot. Thus, if there is risk, there is need for protection of the risk. Therefore, I wouldn’t think auto insurance industry will be forced to shrink as cars are moving towards autopilot, but maybe in far far future, the auto insurance industry will have to lower their premiums for insurers as autopilot becoming more and more common.

I really like your post on the topic of Auto Insurance going away if Self Driving Cars are implemented into our society. I do agree with your post. I believe that Auto Insurance will slowly die out with more Self Driving cars are on the road. Most accidents are caused by human error or judgement so if computers can predict by using data, it can lower the chances of accidents. The only way I can see auto insurance staying around would only be for the users that are holding onto their classic car’s or those who don’t believe in self driving cars. I don’t think auto insurance will go away as a whole, but I don’t think auto insurance would be as big it is like today.

Walter Hodge
Michael some great questions to how the “System” will react or evolve when the introduction of self-driving cars is in effect. I feel, there will still be a high demand for insurance, but the premiums will decrease dramatically so overhead will get reduced. In most futuristic movies where cars are autonomous they still have a manual mode, I’m thinking there’s always going to be situations where it’ll be needed, therefore, liability and risk can be covered. In addition, insurance companies are always expanding into new areas, from digital insurance for businesses, to identity theft insurance for consumers. One business model I see for insurance providers that can be considered for self-driving cars is traffic delays. If computers make less mistakes, react, and respond faster, then times for your route should be calculated to your destination, if the time is not met one might want to be covered for the inconvenience.

This trend in smartphones not being “owned” by the end user will continue. It is better for the businesses involved to keep people upgrading both the physical devices as well as upgrading to newer software. Although I see this trend continuing, I think companies should absolutely do a better job of informing that final customer. Similar to the credit card industry where they are required to use common language to explain their terms, tech companies should be put under that same regulations. This will go far in allowing the end consumer to make an informed decision into what they are purchasing

I remember the public backlash from iPhone users when their devices began slowing down after downloading an IOS update, but I had no idea the justification for Apple doing so was hidden in the license agreement. This is highly unethical on Apple’s part. The fact that Apple justified these actions in the license agreements is a slap in the face to iPhone users since the company knows consumers do not read the details of the agreements. It was purposefully executed deceit.
I believe that through this deceit, Apple has already crossed the line of acceptable behavior drawn by society. Thanks to Apple, public awareness of planned obsolescence has sparked a movement in governments to ban such behavior and hold accused companies accountable.
In addition, I like your comparison of smartphones to cable boxes as mere portals that provide a service to a consumer. It’s interesting to think that I am not buying my phone, I am buying the services and capabilities my phone may provide. This makes me wonder if buying a phone from Apple or Android for $1000 is really worth it if it provides the same services as a much cheaper alternative.