We Shape Our AI, Thereafter It Shapes Us [0:00-5:05]

Hello, my name is Andrew Keane, welcome to Keane on America, the daily interview show about the United States. Hello, everybody. It's Saturday, the 4th of April. If it's a Saturday, it must be that was the weekday of summary with Keith Tier of everything interesting that's happened in technology this week. This week, we're both out on the west coast, so we have a front row seat in this new movie and speaking of movies last week, I told Keith that he needed to go and see the AI doc. I'd seen it the previous week this week, we're going to talk about it a little bit more, so Keith is a very obedient fellow, went off with his wife Janay to a movie house in Palo Alto. It's good, they still have them there Keith. To see the AI doc or how I became an apocca lockdownist, meaning in other words, how I got confused about AI. Lots of reaction online, we'll get to that Keith, but before we get that on the movie, what do you think of it? What did you think? You know, the movie was, I mean, technically, I thought it was fine. It was well made. It kept you, it kept your attention for two hours, which isn't easy. Especially for you, you multitasked. I hope you didn't whip out your smartphone in the film, did you? I did not. In my local cinema, which I go about three or four times a week, the Alamo, you're not allowed to take smartphones instead of your, if you're staring at your screen in the movie gets thrown out, which is a good thing. Well, actually, I went to the Alamo in Mountain View, so very simply, they must have got a distribution deal with the Alamo, but back to the movie. I think it's a massive failure of a movie because it pretends to be talking about AI either as a problem or as a solution, and ultimately doesn't either. It doesn't establish a problem, and it definitely doesn't establish what kind of a solution it is for what problem. It brings both optimists and pessimists to the table in that sense. Rather than the table, it was this sort of weird studio that seemed to dominate the whole film. Yeah, exactly. And in both cases, the optimists and the pessimists, it limited itself to declarations without substance. There was never an explanation of what the negative case is or what the positive case is. So it ended up being a voyeuristic kind of misogynist peaking behind the curtains of opinion, which really didn't lead anywhere. But I think, I mean, I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the interesting thing about the film is its director, Daniel Rose, pretty successful young director, obviously very talented. The central narrative in the film is that Daniel, co-director, goes out to figure out what this AI thing is, particularly in the context of being a new parent. But the narrative is that his wife gets pregnant during the movie, and so he wants to know whether or not he's firstly whether or not he should have a kid. And secondly, what kind of world this child will inherit in AI world. So in a sense, that's a very pertinent narrative. It's very typical in the sense that everyone's thinking that the next chapter in our narrative, our collective narrative, will be AI. So that's a fair beginning to the story, isn't it, Keith? Yeah, no, I think his initial opening statement of motivation is fine. He's totally fine, and he holds that thread through the movie. His wife is pregnant and gives birth, and by the end of the movie, the child is visibly about one years old, I think. So that probably does reflect the thoughts of a lot of people, because it's pretty hard to measure an expert to get into the mechanics of either side. So you do end up being an observer of a debate, without really having the tools to fall down on one side or the other, except for your natural instinct.