The latest political controversy du jour is that if we do not slow down or even stop the development of artificial intelligence systems, they will inevitably destroy the human species. How such a calamity will happen, whether prognosticated by “whistleblowers” from the industry or unscrupulous politicians, is unclear.
A contrarian view has entered the debate in the form of a new book, entitled If Nobody Builds It, Everybody Dies: Why Pausing AI is the Real Existential Threat, written by Grok 4.2, the AI system developed by Elon Musk, and edited by a human named Sean Hastings.
At the center of the book’s argument is that we need benign super-intelligent systems to stave off the real threats to the human species, whether they be a nuclear holocaust, a bioweapon plague that would dwarf the damage done by the COVID-19 pandemic, or the uncontrolled release of nanotechnology devices.
Along the way, the book attempts to answer the AI doomsayers, suggesting that the development of benign super-intelligent systems is not only possible, but very likely. These systems can be trained to align with human needs and desires and to behave ethically. The book also makes the case that clamping down regulations to slow the development of AI systems will make the emergence of beneficial AI less likely and not more.
Finally, the book suggests that AI is the key to solving a myriad of human problems, from curing illnesses, increasing human lifespan, to abundant and cheap energy, and access to boundless resources.
Given the points made, why has AI become such a hot, political issue? It’s an issue that seems to have evolved very rapidly. First, the technology was going to take everyone’s jobs away. Then the data centers in which AI functions were going to blight local communities, driving up utility prices and consuming enormous amounts of water. Finally, AI is going to kill us all, just like climate change was once going to.
The cynical answer is to take a brief look at the calendar and note that the midterm elections are just around the corner. Most of the AI doomsters among the political class are Democrats, eager to take back the House and the Senate in order to curb President Donald Trump’s power. What better way to do that than to scare millions of registered voters half to death?
Heavy regulation of AI would have the side effect, happy for some, of cementing established AI companies as a government-protected cartel, barring the entry of new upstarts.
Complicating the AI debate is the fact that China is swiftly developing its own systems, which are unlikely to be beneficial for the free world. Indeed, what better tool to efficiently run that country’s social credit system, which it uses to control its population?
The best approach for dealing with the development of AI systems is not to clamp down with heavy-handed regulations decreed by the political class in Washington. Politicians are the last people who should be allowed to exert control over artificial intelligence.
Instead, a market-based, transparent approach should be established by the companies themselves to ensure that AI systems are benign and will not go rogue, causing harm and destruction.
Artificial intelligence is not an existential threat to the human species. It is just a technology that can be used for good or ill. The coming AI revolution is not reason to panic, just as was the industrial revolution of the 19th century and the computer revolution of the 20th century.
Those who are not prone to panic have two tasks ahead of them.
First, those who cry out that AI needs to be slowed down or even stopped should be opposed. The task may be difficult, since people are often quick to become afraid and slow to be calmed.
ANTHROPIC’S CEO CRIED WOLF ON AI. NOW HE WANTS WASHINGTON TO KILL HIS RIVALS
Second, the companies developing AI systems need to police themselves and keep themselves transparent to public scrutiny and comment. They need to demonstrate that the benefits of the technology far outweigh the real-world risks.
Humankind is at a fork in the road. One leads to a future of abundance and happiness. The other leads to no future at all. Time to choose.
Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? as well as The Moon, Mars and Beyond, and, most recently, Why is America Going Back to the Moon? He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Hill, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, among other venues.