Tyler Cowen debunks AI apocalypse fears, advocates for cautious progress

In the ongoing debate about the safety of artificial intelligence (AI), concerns have been raised regarding the potential existential risks posed by advanced AI systems. Recently, the ouster of OpenAI’s co-founder Sam Altman has brought these discussions to the forefront. While some, like AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky, express grave concerns about AI surpassing human intelligence and diverging from human goals, others, such as economist Tyler Cowen, argue that AI is just the latest in a series of technological challenges that humanity has faced. Cowen contends that the risks associated with AI should be considered in the context of existing existential threats, and emphasises the potential benefits of AI in addressing such challenges. He also challenges the probabilistic framing of the debate, suggesting a focus on improving AI safety rather than attempting to halt its progress entirely. Despite differing perspectives, the absence of substantial peer-reviewed research supporting the doomsday scenarios is noted, and the importance of continued efforts to make AI safer is underscored.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

A Guide to the AI Safety Debate After Sam Altman’s Ouster: Tyler Cowen

By Tyler Cowen

When it comes to artificial intelligence, one of the most commonly debated issues in the technology community is safety — so much so that it has helped lead to the ouster of OpenAI’s co-founder Sam Altman, according to Bloomberg News.

And those concerns boil down to a truly unfathomable one: Will AI kill us all? Allow me to set your mind at ease: AI is no more dangerous than the many other existential risks facing humanity, from supervolcanoes to stray asteroids to nuclear war.

I am sorry if you don’t find that reassuring. But it is far more optimistic than someone like the AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky, who believes humanity has entered its last hour. In his view, AI will be smarter than us and will not share our goals, and soon enough we humans will go the way of the Neanderthals. Others have called for a six-month pause of AI progress, so we humans can get a better grasp of what’s going on.

Read more: 🔒 RW Johnson: African juntas rue ejecting French Foreign Legion for Wagner

AI is just the latest instantiation of the many technological challenges humankind has faced throughout history. The printing press and electricity involved pluses and misuses too, but it would have been a mistake to press the “stop” or even the “slow down” buttons on either.

AI worriers like to start with the question: “What is your ‘p’ [probability] that AI poses a truly existential risk?” Since “zero” is obviously not the right answer, the discussion continues: Given a non-zero risk of total extinction, shouldn’t we be truly cautious? You then can weigh the potential risk against the forthcoming productivity improvements from AI, as one Stanford economist does in a recent study. You still end up pretty scared.

One possible counterargument is that we can successfully align the inner workings of AI systems with human interests. I am optimistic on that front, but I have more fundamental objections to how the AI pessimists are framing their questions.

First, I view AI as more likely to lower than to raise net existential risks. Humankind faces numerous existential risks already. We need better science to limit those risks, and strong AI capabilities are one way to improve science. Our default path, without AI, is hardly comforting.

The above-cited risks may not kill each and every human, but they could deal civilization as we know it a decisive blow. China or some other hostile power attaining super-powerful AI before the US does is yet another risk, not quite existential but worth avoiding, especially for Americans.

Read more: The death of truth by a thousand cuts – Chuck Stephens on global Israel-Palestine divide

It is true that AI may help terrorists create a bioweapon, but thanks to the internet that is already a major worry. AI may help us develop defenses and cures against those pathogens. We don’t have a scientific way of measuring whether aggregate risk goes up or down with AI, but I will opt for a world with more intelligence and science rather than less.

Another issue is whether we should confront issues probabilistically or by thinking at the margin. The AI doomsayers tend to ask the question this way: “What is your ‘p’ for doom?” A better way might be this: “We’re not going to stop AI, so what should we do?” The obvious answer is to work to make it better, safer, and more likely to lower risks.

It is very hard to estimate AI or indeed any other existential risk in the abstract. We can make more progress by considering a question in a specific real-world context.

Note that the pessimistic arguments are not supported by an extensive body of peer-reviewed research — not in the way that, say, climate-change arguments are. So we’re being asked to stop a major technology on the basis of very little confirmed research. In another context, this might be called pseudo-science.

Furthermore, the risk of doom does not show up in market prices. Risk premiums are not especially high at the moment, and most economic variables appear to be well-behaved and within normal ranges. If you think AI is going to end the world, there is likely some intermediate period when you could benefit by going long on volatility and short on the market. If nothing else, you could give away money and alleviate human suffering before the final curtain falls. Yet that is not a bet that many seasoned traders are willing to make.

When I ask AI pessimists if they have adjusted their portfolio positions in accord with their beliefs, they almost always say they have not. At the end of the day, they are too sensible to think probabilistically and de novo about each and every life decision. The best ones are working to make AI safer — and that is a project we should continue to encourage.

Read also:

© 2023 Bloomberg L.P.

Visited 324 times, 3 visit(s) today