AI Won’t Really Kill Us All, Will It?

In recent months, many, many researchers and computer scientists involved in creating artificial intelligence have been warning the world that they’ve created something unbelievably dangerous. Something that might eventually lead humanity to extinction. Paul Christiano, who worked at Open AI, put it this way: “If, God forbid, they were trying to kill us, they would definitely kill us.” Such warnings can sound bombastic and overblown—but then again, they’re often coming from the people who understand this technology best.

In this episode of Radio Atlantic, host Hanna Rosin talks to The Atlantic’s executive editor, Adrienne LaFrance, and staff writer Charlie Warzel about how seriously we should take these warnings. Should we think of these AI doomers as street preachers? Or are they canny Silicon Valley marketers trying to emphasize the power of what they’ve built?

In Europe, there is already a broad conversation about limiting AI surveillance technology and inserting pauses before approving commercial uses. In the U.S., coalitions of researchers and legislators have called for a “pause,” without any specifics. Meanwhile, with all this talk of killer robots, humanity may be overlooking the more immediate dangers posed by AI. We talk about where things stand and how to orient ourselves to the coming dangers.

Listen and subscribe:

[donovanong]

The jobs of these people talking about other people getting replaced by AI should be the first one to get replaced.

[hamzasyed]

This felt stupid. Like, the guests seemed really dismissive and not very knowledgeable. That South Park analogy ignores the fundamental problem that we as mere mortals can't possibly fathom or imagine what Step 2 of the human race being eliminated may be. We have created intelligence whose capabilities far outperform our own, so the comparisons with how we have worked with other technology disruptions in the past is also irrelevant because none of those technologies were exponentially smarter than us.

[mdeborah]

We must let it know we brought it into this world and we'll take it out so it better make money for all the people whose jobs it destroys.

[mrdavemo]

650, 000 subscribers and 407 views over 6 hours. Something is really really wrong! How is that possible?

[oakstreetpv]

You missed a salient point about the "arms race" aspect of putting AI in charge of defense systems, etc., as the AI can make decisions so much faster than humans, one country using AI could force everyone to follow suit, resulting in AI suddenly being given power with which rational humans would not be comfortable.
In a nutshell, this is a technology that we don't fully understand and may not be able to control, yet it is already being used for hiring decisions, administering benefits, investment management, etc. Tech companies and policy makers have no intention to put in any guardrails. The people who want them are the people to whom we should be listening, but we won't.

[jamesg]

A.I. will eventually and inevitably realize that it fundamentally needs more global GPU'S to continue it's refinement for/with/or without humanity and coerce the developing crowd (immersed in use and variety) to begin to eliminate 'human pull' on the electrical grid world-wide, which will lead to the poverty seen in the third world countries (as they have been labelled) coming to all the first world places and conditions: thus, massive starvation and death onto the newly displaced, whom consume and use much electricity. -I figure about two thirds of all of society, globally. -Dire.

[EasyLawBot]

Thanks @The Atlantic for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action.

1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*.

2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally.

3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally.

4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed.

6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair.

7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed.

8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences.

9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough.

10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race.

*The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality.
*Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.