
We are told that AI entities much like ChatGPT might soon kill us all. The statement is vague and unfalsifiable. It might be true, it might be false. People with credential (e.g., Turing Award recipient Yoshua Bengio) believe it.
Many still remember the Year-2000 bug. Our computers used two-digit coding for dates, and some software could get confused. At the time, experts worried that a bug in dates might trigger nuclear Armageddon or an infrastructure collapse. At the very least, planes could fall.
End-of-the-world scenarios are nothing new. Pretty much all civilizations have lived with various such predictions.
Some people are offended by my comparisons. I truly do not mean to offend.
But as stated, these statements are spiritual in nature. Many will remember that when OpenAI first developed GPT-2, they told the world that it was too dangerous to release. Year after year, we were warned that the next iteration of would doom us all.
Of course, any technology is inherently dangerous. Invent the bow to go hunting, and someone might soon turn the bow against you. Invent the engine, and one might soon build tanks and destroy nations. Develop nuclear technology, and one might soon raze your cities.
Yet that is not what is at stake in these discussions. The concrete threats are not ascertained and addressed. No doubt, there are some people doing this work, hopefully in the US military. What if an adversary can take control of the economy or military installations? What if an AI agent goes rogue? It is worth investing time in designing defenses.
What we have instead is something of the sort:
- A vague but global threat. It could be a fatal virus engineered in a lab, a climate catastrophe, a fatal bug affecting all our software, an alien invasion, a rogue AI, Jews taking over our institutions.
- A few people come forward and they offer to save us. Importantly we must give them resources and influence. Ultimately, they seek a totalitarian solution: everyone must be made to agree so that we can be saved.
- As the process unfolds, people with an opposing viewpoint are described as a danger. They must be silenced and discredited. Eventually, it can become moral to exaggerate the threat or to rewrite counterpoints. People must be made to understand one way or another.
In this instance, I refer to people who advocate that AI will doom us as AI Doomers. These people tend to carry a totalitarian ideology. Their ideas will only work if everyone is made to agree. And it would severely restrict the freedom of billions of people, although they usually present it differently.
Doomers do not have bad intentions. On the contrary, they are often really out there to save the world. But good intentions do not, in any way, justify the means no guarantee a good outcome.
Human beings reason based on cultural knowledge. For centuries or more, totalitarian ideas have led to ruin.
But shouldn’t we just be prudent and adopt their views, just in case? It is a fallacious argument. Members of the intellectual elite have a tendency to fall for the kind of hubris where they think that, if only they were given more power, the world would be better off. It is rarely true. Thomas Sowell has an excellent book on the topic, Intellectuals and Society. He makes the case that intellectuals often promote harmful ideas, at not cost to themselves. Rationally, we should therefore be cautious.
You are not safer without technology. In fact, the risk of human extinction is assuredly higher if we are poorer and have less technology.
Is this unprecedented? The printing press was unprecedented. Arabic numbers were unprecedented. Maybe we should go back to Roman numerals, to be safe. Fear of what is without precedent soon becomes undistinguishable from an anti-innovation stance.
What if you do not like the people who lead the big AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. Maybe you think that these billionaires are a danger. And you might be right. But consider the history of humanity. Wealthy people have primarily caused harm through the promotion of bad ideas. The mass murders are almost invariably derived from politics. Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
Further, we need to consider how powerful people might use the fear of AI for their own purposes. It is entirely credible that the owners large company could promote fear so that they get to write the regulations that will keep out their competitors, or merely as a form of cheap marketing.
To my friends who fear AI, I urge you. Use reason. Do the work. Do not rely on hasty thought experiments. Work out the details. Think. Think about the countermeasures.
And for the rest of us. Let us build. Let us bring prosperity. Let us hasten the cure for cancer. Let us dream of exploring our solar system.