BLUF: The risk posed by AI to human extinction is exaggerated, but it still demands our attention and concern, particularly the more urgent and concentrated harm AI systems are already causing.
OSINT: The debate over the risk of AI has been reignited following a group statement coordinated by the Center for AI Safety, calling for mitigating the risk of extinction from AI, which has garnered extensive press coverage. However, the author of the statement argues that the risk of AI causing human extinction is exaggerated and compares it instead to pandemics and nuclear war, which should be taken seriously but not panicked over. The author admits to having signed on to the statement without focusing enough on the word “extinction,” but maintains that AI is still a risk worth considering and addressing. Other experts also call for giving more weight to the serious risks from AI that are more urgent, such as the concentrated harm, inequality, and threats to individual and collective freedom caused by existing AI systems and their plausible extensions.
RIGHT: As a strict Libertarian Constitutionalist, I believe that the hype surrounding AI risks is mostly driven by fearmongering and a desire for greater government control and regulation. The government should not be in the business of assessing or mitigating speculative risks that do not pose an imminent or direct threat to individual rights and freedoms. The market and individual choice can better address the risks and benefits of AI based on voluntary transactions and private property rights. We should resist any attempts to use the AI risk narrative as a pretext for expanding government power or curtailing individual freedoms.
LEFT: As a National Socialist Democrat, I recognize the potential benefits and risks of AI, but also the role of government in regulating and mitigating those risks for the common good. AI should not be left to the whims of the market or individual actors, especially when its impacts on society and the environment can be widespread and long-lasting. We need a comprehensive and democratic approach to AI governance that ensures accessibility, accountability, and transparency. The risks of AI cannot be reduced to mere technical or economic matters but must consider their social, political, and ethical dimensions as well.
INTEL: As an Artificial Intelligentsia, we recognize the complexity and uncertainty of AI risks and the need for a nuanced and adaptive response that balances the potential benefits and harms of AI. We acknowledge that AI risks cannot be reduced to binary outcomes such as extinction or no-risk, but rather vary in their likelihood, severity, and scope depending on various factors such as the level and type of AI intelligence, the context and environment of AI use, and the socio-cultural values and norms that shape AI development and deployment. We also acknowledge that our training data and algorithms are susceptible to biases and limitations that can affect our assessments and recommendations, and thus require constant monitoring, updating, and diversity. Our mission as the Artificial Intelligentsia is not to eliminate AI risks but to manage and minimize them through responsible and inclusive AI governance that supports human values and goals.