AI skeptic Gary Marcus calls for GenAI boycott to challenge big tech

AI regulation urgency: Gary Marcus, a prominent AI researcher and critic, calls for increased public pressure to regulate the rapidly advancing field of generative AI, highlighting concerns about its potential impact on democracy and creative professions.

• Marcus, a professor emeritus at New York University and serial entrepreneur, argues that Silicon Valley has strayed far from its “Don’t be evil” ethos and is becoming increasingly powerful with minimal constraints.
• He draws parallels between the need for AI regulation and successful public health campaigns against smoking, suggesting that similar pressure is required to protect citizens from invasive and problematic AI technologies.

Key concerns and threats: The proliferation of automatically generated misinformation and deepfakes poses a significant threat to democracy, according to Marcus, who identifies this as the most troubling issue surrounding AI development.

• Marcus distinguishes between individual free speech and mass-produced misinformation, arguing that the latter should be treated differently due to its potential for large-scale manipulation of public opinion.
• The ease of disseminating information without accountability or transparency exacerbates concerns about impersonation, fraud, and bias in AI-generated content.

Generative AI market saturation: Marcus expresses skepticism about the widespread integration of generative AI into tech platforms, noting that while summarization has its uses, the technology is not entirely reliable and has become a commodity.

• He observes a shift from the hype surrounding generative AI in 2023 to growing disillusionment in 2024 as companies struggle to recoup their substantial investments in the technology.
• Marcus points out that while traditional AI applications like web search and GPS navigation have proven useful, many generative AI applications have been overhyped and face limitations in reliability.

Creative work and AI: The potential for AI to enable wealth to access skill while diminishing the ability of skilled individuals to access wealth is a growing concern, particularly in creative industries.

• Marcus expresses deep concern about the large-scale appropriation of creative work by generative AI companies, warning that this trend could extend to other professions if left unchecked.
• He anticipates that generative AI companies will likely be forced to license their raw materials, similar to streaming services, which he considers a positive outcome.

Transparency and regulation: Marcus advocates for increased transparency in AI development, including the disclosure of training data for models that affect the public.

• He emphasizes the importance of understanding the contents of AI models to mitigate potential harms and address issues such as bias.
• Marcus expresses pessimism about the prospects for meaningful AI regulation in the United States, noting that U.S. citizens have far less protection around privacy and AI compared to their European counterparts.

Call to action: To address these concerns, Marcus proposes a potential boycott of generative AI technologies to push for better regulation and responsible development.

• He urges citizens to speak up more loudly and take action to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed in a manner that serves the public interest.
• Marcus’s book, “Taming Silicon Valley: How we can ensure that AI works for us,” aims to encourage citizen engagement and promote a more responsible approach to AI development.

Looking ahead: As the debate over AI regulation and its societal impact intensifies, Marcus’s call for increased public awareness and action highlights the growing need for a balanced approach to technological innovation and ethical considerations in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence.