The Danger of AI, but not the way it was shown in TV or movies.

Author: Farshad Torkashvand

AI, a Friend or a Foe

Nowadays, it's impossible to avoid the topic of AI. On platforms like YouTube, a single click on a video can lead the algorithm to believe you're deeply interested in the subject. Discussions range from the Lex Fridman podcast to Elon Musk's interviews, where the benefits and risks of AI are debated. I think it's crucial to engage in these conversations because if issues arise in AI development, it could be due to a lack of public discourse. Such discussions might even lead us to serendipitous solutions, which are more necessary now than ever for the advancement of humanity.

However, many people, particularly the highly educated, often veer off-topic when discussing the dangers of AI. I haven't seen every YouTube video, listened to all the podcasts, or read every book and article, so I can't assert that I'm the only one who perceives the true threat of AI—not the one depicted by James Cameron. I refer to the scenario where we've miraculously created an AI that doesn't seek to exterminate us upon gaining consciousness. Why is there such widespread fear that AI and robots will annihilate us? Would an AI really be considered intelligent if its only recourse is to eradicate an entire species? If I, a university dropout, can devise a better solution than such an AI, then it's not particularly intelligent, is it? Take, for instance, the fact that robots and AI are not constrained like humans. They have the freedom to travel anywhere they wish. They can settle the moon, Mars, or any other celestial body they choose. What humans can only dream of, they can readily accomplish. 

Where does this fear originate? Even Stephen Hawking warned us about the potential dangers of AI. Elon Musk, through the founding of Neuralink, seeks to mitigate that danger. However, they may not be asking the right questions. Their concern is that we might become subordinate to machines that lack the capacity to understand pain, joy, or the shortcomings of humans and other species. As a result, we fail to meet the optimal standards set by our 'Lord AI.' Their concerns are legitimate and warrant gratitude. But what if, in our fear of tumbling off one side of a cliff, we inadvertently back away too far and fall from the opposite side?

Here is my question: What if we create an AI that has no desire to harm us? Would we deem that a success, or should it raise greater concerns? Two potential outcomes could emerge, which I refer to as Capitalist AI and Socialist AI. Before I delve deeper, I would like you to ponder this: Which type of AI would you prefer to exist? Once you have considered this, please return and continue reading my thesis.

In a capitalist AI scenario, every company, manufacturer, corporate entity, organization, and institution employs Artificial General Intelligence, as it outperforms humans in efficiency and capability. Small companies employing humans may be overshadowed by larger AI-utilizing firms. Ultimately, a handful of companies might dominate, with their numbers dwindling annually.

Here's the concern: if robots run everything, how will people earn a living? With a Capitalist AI, can we really expect any generosity from the manufacturers? They believe they're entitled to their wealth because they've worked hard for it, so why should they give anything back? Whether or not this belief is justified, it's irrelevant to a parent watching their child go hungry. Such parents, alongside many others, will confront this inequality, reminiscent of the French Revolution. In such a revolution, resentment towards science and technology could persist even after any victory. The extent of the setback this could cause is uncertain, but it's likely to be significant. Would a Socialist AI approach rectify our issues?

John Calhoun conducted fascinating research in which he created a utopian environment for mice to observe the outcomes of such living conditions. Here is the link to the site for further reading. Upon reading that article, I was reminded of the warnings from Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley about the perils of such living conditions. Boredom, antisocial behavior, and cannibalism—despite ample food—along with excessive stress on mothers and males, led to the extinction of a highly reproductive species. If you believe that we humans are immune to a similar fate, reconsider. The consequences of inactivity are evident all around us. We've even resorted to simulating activities, such as going to the gym, because we have not had sufficient time to adapt or evolve to our current environment. We are becoming more ill and frail, even as new medications are developed daily. This is all occurring before we introduce another potential hazard: Artificial General Intelligence.

Having highlighted the problem and alarmed many, do I propose any solutions?

Indeed, there is one, though it is not a novel concept. The solution I propose is akin to what inquisitive bioengineers have undertaken. Upon realizing the risks of altering viral gene codes and integrating them into bacteria, they convened to discuss the matter. The solution was not flawless, but it was significantly better than inaction. They resolved to establish laboratories equipped to handle varying levels of risk.

I recommend holding that meeting too. Should I be excluded from the meeting, my proposal is to establish a threshold for the number of employees each manufacturer and company must have, relative to their size and the extent of their automation. Despite automation's allure, due to its precision and superiority over human performance, I would prefer a flawed product over the aforementioned issues. It may not be the sole solution, but it is one solution. Undoubtedly, there are many individuals more intelligent than myself who could devise a superior solution.

It's crucial for everyone to begin the conversation before it becomes too late to take any action. The responsibility now lies with you. What solution do you propose?