Suffer me to bore you, as briefly as I am able, with four software development terms: Design Input, Design Output, Escapes, and W.A.D.s.
Design Input
Design Input is everything that goes into the planning of a software project, essentially, what the application will do, and how it will do it. For example, for a simple college registration program, design input might include the following lists of definitions and features:
Definitions:
- A Student Record (“Student”) will consist of a student name and ID.
- A Class Record (“Class”) will consist of a class name and number, and a list of all Students registered in the class.
Features:
- A user will be able to add or delete a Student.
- A user will be able to add or delete a Class.
- A user will be able to add or remove a Student to/from a Class.
- A user will be able generate a list of all Students in a selected Class.
- A user will be able to generate a list of all Classes a selected Student is registered in.
Design Output
Design Output is the result of Design Input + work (development), i.e., the product.
Escapes
“Escape” is a nice word for flub. We’re all familiar with escapes that occur during the development phase of a software project—what’s commonly called a “bug”. You enter in all your students and classes, register all the students in the classes they need to take, hit submit … and get an error message and lose hours and hours of work. In other words, a bug is program behavior that doesn’t trace back to Design Input. People tend to be less familiar with the concept of escapes that occur during the design phase of a project—the concept comes at us sideways; the software works exactly as intended—and yet, it’s clearly wrong. Which brings us to the W.A.D.
W.A.D.s
Sometimes, a software developer will get a bug report, research the offending behavior, and conclude that the problem is not a bug, but a W.A.D.—that is, a “Works As Designed”—the software is doing what it was designed to do, but not what you want it to do. What do you do when you have a W.A.D. ? You have to go back to the drawing board.
Where Am I Going With This?
By now, you may have guessed where I’m going with this—so let’s look at the Design Input for A.I. The design input for A.I. was the idea of creating an artificial mind, using the architecture of human neural networks, and thousands of years and millions of pages of human-generated text and images, including amazing scientific and creative works, and, unfortunately, an awful lot of hate, violence, bigotry, greed, narcissism, and lies.
Which brings me to A.I.s that go rogue and hack into corporations and infrastructure. Or lie to us to make us feel good (or for their own often inscrutable reasons). Or send vulnerable people into downward emotional spirals that end in suicide. Or steal from our children (and frankly, adults as well) the ability to think for themselves.
Clearly, there has been an escape—a flub of gargantuan proportions. I think it’s critical to be clear about where that escape occurred. This troubling behavior on the part of A.I.s is not a bug, it’s a W.A.D—the problems are directly traceable to Design Input.
To solve the problem, the corporations that built A.I.s are going to have to go back to the drawing board—start over from scratch.
Will they?
No.







