Debunking the Myth of Killer AI: A Rational Perspective
In a world where the fear of Artificial Intelligence (AI) turning against humanity looms large, it is crucial to examine this notion with reason and clarity. The idea that AI will one day decide to eradicate us is deeply engrained in our cultural consciousness, fuelled by ancient myths and popular sci-fi films. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that AI is not a living being with its own desires or evolutionary instincts. It is merely code and machines, created and controlled by humans.
The idea that AI will suddenly gain autonomy and develop motivations to harm us is nothing more than a fear campaign. AI lacks the capacity for wants or goals, and it certainly does not possess the will to kill. Portraying AI as a sentient being, ready to engage in a battle for survival, is a fallacy.
While there are many believers in the threat of a killer AI, it’s important to scrutinize their motivations. Some of these individuals are builders and funders of AI, and their words may not align with their actions. Additionally, a subset of AI risk proponents may have vested interests as AI “safety experts”. It is essential to approach the discussion around AI with a balanced and evidence-based approach. The potential dangers and benefits of advanced AI systems are subjects of ongoing debate and research. We must navigate these waters carefully, free from the influence of extreme beliefs, in order to make informed decisions that shape the future of humanity.
AI and the Threat to Society: The Battle for Free Expression
A prevalent risk associated with artificial intelligence is its potential to undermine and damage society. This notion has gained traction under the banner of “AI alignment”, shifting the focus from physical harm to societal harm caused by AI-generated content, such as misinformation and hate speech.
The parallels drawn with the social media “trust and safety” wars shed light on the potential consequences of unchecked content restrictions. While certain limits on speech are necessary, it is crucial to recognize that this can become a slippery slope. Once a framework for censorship is in place, various entities – government agencies, activists, and non-government organizations – may demand even more extensive control over what is deemed acceptable speech. In many countries, including Canada, it’s already happening. This continuous cycle, with the support of authoritarian figures, can have far-reaching consequences.
The issue of AI alignment has sparked debates between proponents advocating for engineered AI-generated speech that benefits society and opponents who see this as an imposition of some form of “speech dictatorship”. The danger lies in allowing a small group of individuals to determine what AI can say or generate, especially when we consider the potential for AI to become the control layer for numerous aspects of our lives.
We must realize that the battle over AI’s speech and generation capabilities is of utmost importance. Those who disagree with the prevailing ideology imposed on social media and AI should be wary. The control and operation of AI will significantly impact society, making it vital to be aware of the influence of a select few social engineers who claim to be protecting us. Suppressing AI under the guise of protection risks, giving undue power to a limited group, hinders the potential benefits of AI while impeding societal progress.
The Myth of a Job Apocalypse and AI’s Potential for Prosperity
Throughout history, the fear of job displacement caused by technological advancements has persisted. From the mechanical loom to modern AI, each wave of panic predicts the demise of human labour. Yet, time and time again, these fears have proven unfounded. Despite the dire predictions, the world has experienced consistent job growth and higher wages with each major technological shift. Is this time different?
This time, proponents argue that AI will render human workers redundant and decimate job opportunities. Contrary to this belief, allowing AI to develop and integrate into the economy has the potential to unleash an unprecedented and sustained economic boom, leading to record job creation and wage growth.
At the heart of the job apocalypse argument is what’s known as the Lump of Labor Fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that there is a fixed amount of work in the economy, and if machines perform it, there will be no jobs for humans. In reality, when technology enhances production, productivity increases, leading to lower prices for goods and services. As a result, individuals have more spending power, driving demand and creating new jobs in new industries.
Human desires are endless, and a technology-infused economy helps fulfill those desires by continuously expanding the availability of goods and services. Technology does not destroy jobs; it fuels economic progress.
AI’s Impact on Wealth Inequality
Another concern surrounding AI is the potential for it to exacerbate wealth inequality. The argument suggests that if AI takes over all jobs, the owners of AI will hoard economic rewards, leaving regular people with nothing.
The flaw in this theory lies in the fact that as a technology owner, it is not in your best interest to keep the technology to yourself. On the contrary, selling it to as many customers as possible benefits you financially. The global market, with a population of over eight billion, presents the largest customer base for any product. Thus, every new technology, even those initially targeted at high-paying companies or wealthy consumers, rapidly proliferates to reach the mass market, ultimately benefiting everyone on the planet.
A prime example of this is what Elon Musk did with his company, Tesla. He started with the production of an expensive sports car, and then aimed to use the profits to build increasingly affordable models. Today, Tesla’s entry-level Model Y is currently cheaper than the average new vehicle sold in the U.S., according to Business Insider. This strategy has materialized, leading to Tesla’s success, and helped fuel Musk’s ascent to becoming the richest person in the world.
In short, history has demonstrated that widespread adoption of technology benefits all individuals. Motivated by their own self-interest, technology creators are driven to reduce prices until their products are affordable for the global population. This trend is already evident in AI, as evidenced by the availability of state-of-the-art generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard, offered at low cost or even for free. It will continue because vendors seek to maximize their market size and, subsequently, their profits.
Thus, the notion of technology driving wealth centralization is unfounded. Instead, individuals, including everyone on the planet, are empowered by the technology, capturing a significant portion of the generated value. Assuming a free market environment, companies engaged in AI will fiercely compete to achieve this outcome.
This is not to say that inequality is not an issue in society. It certainly is, but it is primarily driven by sectors of the economy resistant to new technology and heavily regulated, such as housing, education, and healthcare. The actual risk related to AI and inequality is not that AI will intensify inequality, but rather the possibility that we will hinder AI's potential to reduce inequality.
Leveraging AI for Global Competitiveness and Societal Benefit
Although we can debunk some unfounded AI risks, there is indeed a genuine concern that deserves attention: the potential ramifications of not pursuing AI development with maximum force and speed. Specifically, the issue lies in the contrasting visions of AI held by different nations, particularly those with authoritarian approaches. To mitigate this risk and secure our values and way of life, a proactive strategy is necessary.
Marc Andreesen has proposed the following plan:
- Big AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can – but not allowed to achieve regulatory capture, not allowed to establish a government-protected cartel that is insulated from market competition due to incorrect claims of AI risk. This will maximize the technological and societal payoff from the amazing capabilities of these companies, which are jewels of modern capitalism.
- Startup AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can. They should neither confront government-granted protection of big companies, nor should they receive government assistance. They should simply be allowed to compete. If and as startups don’t succeed, their presence in the market will also continuously motivate big companies to be their best – our economies and societies win either way.
- Open source AI should be allowed to freely proliferate and compete with both big AI companies and startups. There should be no regulatory barriers to open source whatsoever. Even when open source does not beat companies, its widespread availability is a boon to students all over the world who want to learn how to build and use AI to become part of the technological future, and will ensure that AI is available to everyone who can benefit from it no matter who they are or how much money they have.
- To offset the risk of bad people doing bad things with AI, governments working in partnership with the private sector should vigorously engage in each area of potential risk to use AI to maximize society’s defensive capabilities. This shouldn’t be limited to AI-enabled risks but also more general problems such as malnutrition, disease, and climate. AI can be an incredibly powerful tool for solving problems, and we should embrace it as such.
By adopting this comprehensive strategy, utilizing AI as a driving force, we can not only offset the genuine risks associated with AI misuse and global dominance but also foster economic productivity and unlock human potential. It is time to embrace AI and build a future that harnesses its potential to save the world.
Conor White, CMT, CIM
Wealth Advisor Associate
Raymond James Ltd.
Phone: 519.883.6075
Unit 1 – 595 Parkside Drive | Waterloo, ON | N2L 0C7
conor.white@raymondjames.ca
www.financiallyinsync.com
@ConorWhiteRJ