AI can do it better
Last night I watched the ‘28 Outs’ documentary on ESPN. It is a story about how an umpire, Jim Joyce, made an incorrect call during a 2010 baseball game, robbing Detroit Tigers pitcher, Armando Galarraga, of a perfect game.
It got me thinking about the fallacy of human beings. About our quest for the elusive, though ever attractive, quality of perfection. We aim for perfect designs, perfect assessments, perfect employees, perfect products - yet inherently, everything we are and everything we produce is imperfect.
Until now.
Artificial intelligence has the ability to judge more accurately, more quickly, and more objectively than any human on the planet today. AI never gets bored with repetition, or seeks purpose beyond the mundane. AI has no need to escape the rat race or spend more time with its family. AI is not interested in keeping up with the Jones’ or storing up political power.
A robot would have known that the Cleveland Indians runner was out, Armando would have gone down in history as the fewer than 30 baseball players who have pitched a perfect game.
But that brings us to another point: in some roles, we appreciate our imperfection.
I may want my umpire to be perfect, but I want my pitcher to be fallible. Arguably, a team of robots could pitch, hit, and catch a perfect game - but where’s the fun in that? The exhilaration of sports comes from the competition, the uncertainty, and yes, the imperfection.
As we enter into this new era of Artificial Intelligence surpassing human efficiency in almost every way, it is difficult to deny where that could be of benefit. Conversely, it is relatively easy to see where near-perfection would degrade our value of a thing: in art, in sports, and in any space where the risk is the appeal.
AI is coming for the mundane - the work - the things we wake up and dread doing. And we should let it. There’s plenty left over for us to enjoy.
Of course, this would require fundamental shifts in our society, economy, and culture… more on that another day.
