Artificial Intelligence: Servant or Master
About UsConferencePartner With Us
CIOREVIEW >> Robotics >> NEWS

Artificial Intelligence: Servant or Master

CIO Review

Introduction

1956 marked the point in history beyond which the identity of computers started to diverge from the perception held till that point; it started on an evolutionary journey to change its identity of being a mere machine and evolve in a way where its abilities would emulate the abilities of its creators. It all started with a new conception of the human mind, before which the grey matter was only a stimulus-response based biological entity; now the brain was like a computer that collects information, processes it and acts upon it. Human thoughts were now viewed as programs that direct the biological machinery.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

To strike a conversation about Artificial Intelligence (AI), drawing cues from everyday tasks and trying to notice its covert infiltration into our lives, would be the best foot ahead. Everyday tasks like inquiring weather forecast or demanding a list of Italian restaurants in the locality may serve as the mirror to reflect this infiltration. Widely known faces of AI such as Facebook’s facial recognition, Skype Translator, Siri, Cortana, Amazon’s purchase prediction are mere bubbles in the froth above what is brewing deep down.   

Is it what we think?

The rise of thinking machines, computers to be precise, that can simulate the processing capabilities of the human brain is not only a growing need for the future, but also a demonstration of what we are capable of. AI is an example of mankind’s persistence to create new forces or improve an existing one.

This new fuelling of nearly dormant decades-long AI is an epitome of technological innovations serving as seeds for other technological innovations. In this case, this can be attributed largely to the massive advancements in the Cloud space that has rendered it far more powerful and affordable. Newer energy efficient and powerful hardware and advances in machine learning, including deep neural networks and probabilistic models are also some of the important contributing factors.

Since inception AI has impressed the world with its astounding capabilities. IBM’s Deep Blue and Googles’s AlphaGo have beaten world champions in games counted among the toughest on the planet. Another such example is Chinese search giant Baidu’s, DuLight- an earpiece-cum-camera that uses image, speech and facial recognition to pipe up about the surroundings to the wearer (a visually impaired person).

Although such examples portray an image of technology equivalent to human intelligence, the image is beguiling. Current AI to a large extent fulfills the criteria for “intelligence”- learning from the information, reasoning and arriving at satisfiable conclusion/s, and self-correction. However, the truth is- they are algorithms programmed for competence only in a single, restricted domain. In contrast, human intelligence is much more than the three criterions; human intelligence is adaptable and this thin line separates us from the machines. The subfield of AI, Artificial General Intelligence establishes this thin line as the “characteristic of generality” that lets us collate, analyze information to adapt and undertake new tasks or respond accordingly.

This is evident from the recent incident of Twitter chatbot “Tay”. Microsoft’s creation, “Tay” was supposed to get smarter and learn to engage people through casual and playful conversations. Ironically, within 24 hours the AI chatbot turned racist and misogynistic and ended up Tweeting, “Hitler was right I hate the Jews”. This AI chatbot has managed to show us that the thin line might not be that thin after all and such products are only examples involving a little more than machine learning.

Possibilities

According to Dave Coplin, Chief Envisioning Officer, Microsoft, “AI will change how we relate to technology. This technology will help us augment our processes and methodology, and support us to extend our capability.” Consider the example of Brendan Frey. His previous research involved building AI systems that used probabilistic calculations and huge amounts of data to emulate what any human does when they read a word or recognize a face. He’s using the same approach to build a system that can emulate what a cell does when it reads a genome and generates a new molecule. No matter how minute, there lies possibilities in such attempts that could transform the way we counter diseases; the ways technology can vastly extend our capabilities.

Tech-savvy businesses have already kicked off their own AI projects and its effects are felt as these words take shape. What future AI holds for businesses is only limited by imagination.

The “But” factor

Stephen Hawkins believes that success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history, but unfortunately, it might also be the last as short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky in their draft for Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, 2011, point out three factors which need proper speculation for the AI to further integrate with humanity.

The first is transparency to inspection. In the event of an AI’s misjudgment, rectification thorough human intervention would hold the key. A machine learner based on decision trees or Bayesian networks is fairly transparent to programmer inspection that may allow better spotting of the problem. But, with machine learning algorithm based on neural networks, or self-evolving AI as predicted for the future, it may be nearly impossible for the creators to understand the “why” or “how” behind the algorithm’s judgment.

Next comes predictability, an important factor to consider before AI algorithms take over social functions. The legal principle of “stare decisis” that binds judges to follow past precedent whenever possible is an excellent analogy. One of the most important functions of the legal system is to be predictable that allows, for example, contracts to be written with a prior knowledge about how they will be executed. The job of the legal system is not necessarily to optimize society, but to provide a predictable environment within which citizens can optimize their own lives. On the contrary for an engineer, this preference for precedent may seem incomprehensible—why bind the future to the past, when technology is always improving?

Third is incorruptibility. Immunity to malicious manipulation will be imperative to safe guard society at a time when AI will handle serious security concerns such as scanning airline baggage.

At the business front, present AI’s significance is small as present technology fails short to be pitched as “true AI”. Professor Mary Cummings, director of the Humans and Autonomy Lab affirms that robots and automation solutions in general, excel right now in handling tasks that rely on well-rehearsed skill execution and rule-following. For any tasks that require judgment and expertise based on human knowledge and the ability to consider what-if scenarios, automation falls short.

Conclusion

Forecasting a clear picture at the moment is quite difficult. Undoubtedly, AI has covered a significant distance, but it still is a long way from reckoning into the force it promises to be.

Every innovation, invention comes with strings attached; Cloud and IoT have security issues, the word nuclear instantly instigates terror of “WMD”. However, AI is another beast in itself, it stands alone where calling it just technology is unfulfilling. Innovations no matter how big or small aid our life in a great way, but we control them and any harm it may cast almost entirely depends on human choice. Opposed to it, AI through its name signifies its ability to think, to be intelligent. It is only till now that its intelligence is at par with a new born and as it matures, chances are, its intelligence will expand, arming it with a developed brain or even better, consciousness. At such a stage it will definitely surpass human capabilities becoming an entity in itself, and similar to humans its application of intelligence will only be as good as its intentions.

This in no way questions the huge potential AI holds to consolidate and sustain humanity and push mankind into the future, but only raises a question- “How do we control a technology that rivals and surpasses human intelligence and ensure that it doesn’t turn into a bad master while its creators envisaged a good servant?”

More in News

A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project.  Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate.  Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage.  Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source.  “ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.” Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection.  CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice.  ...Read more
Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred. Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change. “Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.” Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly. Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide. Gryphon  is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more
Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems. Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions. That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation. “Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.” Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently. Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems. Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices. Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more
As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment. Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution. How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution? An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans. Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings. Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available. What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development? The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise. Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution. Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more