I enjoyed reading Shira Ovide's May 21st point-of-view, “How Stupid Was OpenAI's Action with Scarlett Johansson?” until the writer made light of OpenAI's misuse of a woman's voice without her consent.
The headline-making attack on Johansson was ranked No. 6 on my list of the “7 Stupid Tech Owners,” and Ovide effectively apologized for including it. She prefaced No. 6 by saying, “This one's not as serious as the others,” seemingly suggesting that only court hearings and Wall Street turmoil would lead to consequences.
Unfortunately, crimes and misconduct against women often go literally unpunished and perpetrators get away with it. If we all stopped taking injustice against women lightly, maybe things could change.
Colleen Peck, Snoqualmie, Washington
Regarding Luke Perdue's May 1 comment, “US productivity is soaring. And it's not because of AI”:
Perdue argues that artificial intelligence wasn't the main driver of last year's big productivity gains, but rather a surge in new business creation.
Indeed, U.S. labor productivity growth will rebound to 2.7% in 2023, nearly double the rate of the past eight years. This is great, since productivity is key to wage growth. But to suggest that startups are responsible for this recovery is confusing correlation with causation. In fact, academic evidence shows that large companies are more productive than small companies. Moreover, startups are less productive than small companies, so startups cannot be responsible for the overall productivity gains.
Startups don't foster much innovation or competition. The majority of startups are run by people who are tired of working for others or who have difficulty finding other work. A report from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that about 85% of small businesses don't obtain a patent, trademark, or copyright in the first four years. The report said that most small businesses “have little incentive to grow significantly or to innovate visibly.” This is one reason why companies that are 25 years old or older generate roughly the same levels of job creation. As a result, most startups don't foster competition because they don't pose an innovation threat to larger companies.
Reality: Productivity has been driven throughout American history by the emergence of new “general purpose technologies” like steel, the internal combustion engine, electricity, semiconductors, and hopefully AI and the systems it powers. It is these technologies, not small startups, that will likely drive future productivity gains.
The evidence suggests that new business creation is probably not the major driver of productivity growth. It is more reasonable to conclude that a broader set of economic factors, including large business, has driven this productivity growth. Therefore, neither large nor small businesses should be demonised.
Robert D. Atkinson, Washington
The author is president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Regarding Megan McArdle's opinion piece on Thursday, May 2nd, “Listen Up, Intellectuals: AI is Coming to Take Your Job”:
While I agree with McArdle's prediction that artificial intelligence will continue to grow and displace more jobs, I believe there are limits to which jobs are at risk.
In my classes, we've been learning about the philosophy of Thomas Nagel and his protests against human arrogance. He believes that just as the body has limited capabilities, so too does the human mind. We see the same arrogance in the technology world, where AI is seen as an overwhelming force that can do anything. But in reality, AI is quite limited.
Take ChatGPT. It's good at sifting through information and picking keywords, but it can't act autonomously. Its ability to collect and organize data is impressive, but current AI technology is limited to addressing customized problems with specific outcomes and can't act effectively beyond this. This means that human labor is still more reliable for many jobs, given the sheer number of things that can go wrong and the inability of computer algorithms to adapt instantly. We're not sure if this will always be a problem for AI, but for the time being, it seems most people can rest assured that their jobs won't be taken over by bots.
Matthew Malefito, Brooklyn
The author is a student at Fordham University.
The May 11 Climate Lab analysis, “Bishop is Gone. His Species Can Still Be Saved,” leaves out the important role technology plays in protecting endangered North Atlantic right whale populations. Boaters are lovers of marine life and want to see saltwater and freshwater life thrive. We also want boaters to be safe on the water and for local businesses that depend on boating to continue to thrive. That's why the recreational boating and fishing industry has invested heavily in technological advances that protect marine life, boater safety, and coastal economies.
Combining multiple advanced technologies that now exist, including thermal imaging detection, 3D sonar mapping and innovative marine radar algorithms, will enable mariners to more accurately detect whales, monitor their activity, model potential risks and take proactive measures to prevent collisions.
The majority of whale collisions are caused by large ocean-going vessels, not recreational boats. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not consult with the recreational boating industry or available technology when crafting the rule limiting boat speed to 10 knots. Our industry strongly advocates for the White House to repeal the vessel speed rule. While the recreational boating industry is unfairly pigeonholed by this new rule, we are ready to be part of the solution. Using technology, the government can be at the forefront of solving major conservation issues without threatening the small American businesses that make up the $230 billion recreational boating industry on which our coastal economy depends.
The author is vice president of government relations for the National Marine Manufacturers Association.
Regarding the May 13 front page article, “Divided Over Climate Technology”:
That's exactly why communities in southeastern Montana are sounding the alarm over ExxonMobil's proposal to use federal public lands in their backyard as a dumping ground for carbon pollution.
My organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, has been reviewing environmental documents for this project, which proposes up to 15 carbon waste injection wells and a 40-mile pipeline. Using publicly available data, we calculated that the project could release up to 33,900 tons of greenhouse gases over its 20-year lifespan — the equivalent of burning 33.7 million pounds of coal.
Residents from Montana and California to Louisiana are understandably concerned about the technology, which could lead to life-threatening ruptures and leaks.
This plan seeks to give top dollar to fossil fuel companies while the government claims credit for supposed climate action. But this plan is in reality an expensive, dangerous, taxpayer-subsidized deviation from real climate action. We cannot sacrifice communities and the climate to keep polluting industries afloat. We need a just transition to truly renewable energy.
Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, Oakland, California
The author is an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Program.
The article alleges that the federal government and big oil companies are forcing dangerous carbon capture technologies on unwilling Montana landowners. This article and my experience as executive director of the University of Wyoming's School of Energy Resources are starkly different.
Wyoming has been committed to advancing carbon capture for many years. We are home to the largest carbon capture, utilization and storage facility in the United States, where the carbon is permanently stored through a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery, giving us one of the lowest carbon footprints of any available oil or gas. With support from the Department of Energy, state and industry partners, we are also advancing our own permanent carbon storage facility.
In 2019, 35.4% of Wyoming residents supported carbon capture and 55.8% were neutral or unsure. By 2022, 47% supported it and just 43% were neutral or unsure. When Wyoming's energy community was surveyed about emerging technologies, carbon capture was the most popular with nearly 74% support, followed by solar (64%), nuclear (60%), wind (51%) and hydrogen (48%). That means we're not seeing the landowner opposition mentioned in the article.
Perhaps Wyoming’s embrace is due to decades of exposure to the concept. Or perhaps it’s because Wyomingites trust the publicly available geological and scientific data. Or perhaps it’s because Wyoming’s energy-savvy landowners, many of whom have firsthand experience with oil and gas and understand how they can benefit from developing their land. In my view, Wyoming’s greatest energy resource may be its open-minded attitude.
Responsible energy development – working with, not against, the energy community – is what the Equality State does best.
Holly Kurtka, Laramie, Wyoming;
