By Eric Vandenbroeck and co-workers
The Ramifications Of Artificial
Intelligence Part One
Artificial
intelligence (AI) is machines' ability to perform tasks typically associated
with human intelligence, such as learning and problem-solving.
Today, AI systems can
almost perfectly recognize faces and objects. We take speech-to-text
transcription and instant language translation for granted. AI can navigate
roads and traffic well enough to drive autonomously in some settings. A new
generation of AI models can generate novel images and compose text with
extraordinary levels of detail and coherence based on a few simple prompts. AI
systems can produce synthetic voices with uncanny realism and compose music of
stunning beauty. Progress leaps forward even in more challenging domains that
are long thought to be uniquely suited to human capabilities like long-term
planning, imagination, and simulation of complex ideas.
AI has been climbing
the ladder of cognitive abilities for decades, and it now looks set to reach
human-level performance across an extensive range of tasks within the next
three years. That is a big claim, but if I’m even close to right, the
implications are truly profound. What had, when we founded DeepMind, felt
quixotic has become not just plausible but seemingly inevitable.
Beyond AI, a broader
revolution was underway, with AI feeding a powerful, emerging generation of
genetic technologies and robotics. Further progress in one area accelerates the
others in a chaotic and cross-catalyzing process beyond anyone’s direct control.
It was clear that if we or others were successful in replicating human
intelligence, this wasn’t just profitable business as usual but a seismic shift
for humanity, inaugurating an era when unusual risks would match unprecedented
opportunities.
AI, synthetic
biology, and other advanced forms of technology produce tail risks on a deeply
concerning scale. They could present an existential threat to
nation-states—risks so profound they might disrupt or overturn the current
geopolitical order. They open pathways to immense AI-empowered cyberattacks,
automated wars that could devastate countries, engineered pandemics, and a
world subject to unexplainable yet seemingly omnipotent forces. The likelihood
of each may be small, but the possible consequences are huge. Even a slim
chance of outcomes like these requires urgent attention.
Some countries will
react to the possibility of such catastrophic risks with technologically
charged authoritarianism to slow the spread of these new powers. This will
require huge surveillance levels and massive intrusions into our private lives.
Keeping a tight rein on technology could become part of a drift to everything
and everyone being watched constantly in a dystopian global surveillance system
justified by a desire to guard against the most extreme possible outcomes.
Equally plausible is
a Luddite reaction. Bans, boycotts, and moratoriums will ensue. Is it possible
to stop developing new technologies and introduce a series of moratoriums?
Unlikely. With their enormous geostrategic and commercial value, it isn’t easy to
see how nation-states or corporations will be persuaded to give up the
transformative powers unleashed by these breakthroughs unilaterally. Moreover,
attempting to ban new technologies' development is risky: technologically
stagnant societies are historically unstable and prone to collapse. Eventually,
they lose the capacity to solve problems and progress.
From here, pursuing
and not pursuing new technologies is fraught with risk. The chances of muddling
through a “narrow path” and avoiding one or the other
outcome—techno-authoritarian dystopia on the one hand, openness-induced
catastrophe on the other—grow smaller over time as the technology becomes
cheaper, more powerful and more pervasive, and the risks accumulate. And yet,
stepping away is no option either. Even as we worry about their risks, we need
the incredible benefits of the technologies of the coming wave more than ever.
This is the core dilemma: that, sooner or later, a powerful generation of
technology leads humanity toward either catastrophic or dystopian outcomes.
Pessimism aversion is
an emotional response, an ingrained gut refusal to accept the possibility of
seriously destabilizing outcomes. It tends to come from those in secure and
powerful positions with entrenched worldviews, who can superficially cope with change
but struggle to accept any real challenge to their world order. Many of those I
accuse of being stuck in the pessimism-aversion trap fully embrace the growing
critiques of technology. But they nod along without actually taking any action.
We’ll manage; we always do, they say.
Spend time in tech or
policy circles, and it quickly becomes obvious that head-in-the-sand is the
default ideology. To believe and act otherwise risks becoming so crippled by
fear of and outrage against enormous, inexorable forces that everything feels futile.
So the strange intellectual half-world of pessimism aversion rumbles on.
The Argument
Waves are everywhere
in human life. This one is just the latest. People often seem to think it’s
still far off, so futuristic and absurd-sounding that it’s just the province of
a few nerds and fringe thinkers, more hyperbole, technobabble, and boosterism.
That’s a mistake. This is as real as the tsunami coming from the open blue
ocean.
Technologies can and
should enrich our lives; historically, it bears repeating the inventors and
entrepreneurs behind them have been powerful drivers of progress, improving
living standards for billions of us.
But without
containment, every other aspect of technology, every discussion of its ethical
shortcomings or the benefits it could bring, is inconsequential. We urgently
need watertight answers for how the coming wave can be controlled and how the
safeguards and affordances of the democratic nation-state can be maintained,
but right now, no one has such a plan. This is a future that none of us want,
but it’s one I fear is increasingly likely, and I will explain why.
The various
technologies I’m speaking of share four key features that explain why this
isn’t business as usual: they are inherently general and therefore omni-use,
they hyper-evolve, they have asymmetric impacts, and, in some respects, they
are increasingly autonomous.
Their creation is
driven by powerful incentives: geopolitical competition, massive financial
rewards, and an open, distributed research culture. Scores of state and
non-state actors will race ahead to develop them regardless of efforts to
regulate and control what’s coming, taking risks that affect everyone, whether
we like it or not.
The nation-state is
the foundation of our present political order—and the most critical factor in
the containment of technologies. But as we next see, already rocked by crises,
it will be further weakened by a series of waves amplified by the wave: the potential
for new forms of violence, a flood of misinformation, disappearing jobs, and
the prospect of catastrophic accidents.
Further out, the wave
will force a set of tectonic power shifts, simultaneously centralizing and
decentralizing. This will create vast new enterprises, buttress
authoritarianism, and empower groups and movements to live outside traditional
social structures. The delicate bargain of the nation-state will be placed
under immense strain when we need institutions like it most. This is how we end
up in a dilemma.
A question will be,
is there even a slim chance for containment, for wriggling out of the dilemma?
If so, how? In this section, we outline ten steps, working out from the code
and DNA level to the international treaties level, forming a complex, nested set
of constraints, and an outline plan for containment.
Given that
nation-states are charged with managing and regulating the impact of technology
in the best interests of their populations, how prepared are they for what’s to
come? If the state cannot coordinate the containment of this wave and cannot
ensure it is of net benefit to its citizens, what options does that leave
humanity in the medium to long term?
Since 2010, more
countries have slid backward on measures of democracy than have progressed, a
process that appears to be accelerating. Rising nationalism and
authoritarianism seem endemic, from Poland and China to Russia, Hungary, the
Philippines, and Turkey. Populist movements range from the bizarre, like QAnon,
to the directionless (the gilets jaunes in France). However, from Bolsonaro in
Brazil to Brexit in the U.K., their prominence on the world stage has been
impossible to miss.
Behind the new authoritarian
impulse and political instability lies a growing pool of social resentment. A
key catalyst of instability11 and social resentment, inequality has surged
across Western nations in recent decades, and nowhere more so than in the
United States. Between 1980 and 2021(link)the share of national income earned
by the top 1 percent has almost doubled and now sits just under 50 percent.
Wealth is ever more concentrated in a tiny clique. Government policy, a
shrinking 14 working-age population, stalling educational levels, and
decelerating long-term growth have all contributed to decisively more unequal
societies. Forty million people in the United States15 live in poverty, and
more than five million live in “Third World conditions”—all within the world’s
most prosperous economy.
These are especially
worrying trends16 when considering persistent relationships between social
immobility, widening inequality, and political violence. Across data from more
than one hundred countries, evidence suggests that the lower a country’s social
mobility, the more it experiences upheavals like riots, strikes,
assassinations, revolutionary campaigns, and civil wars. When people feel
stuck, that others are unfairly hogging the rewards, they get angry.
Every previous wave
of technology has had profound political implications. We should expect the
same in the future. The last wave—the arrival of mainframes, desktop PCs and
desktop software, the internet, and the smartphone—greatly benefited society.
It laid down the new tools for the modern economy, bolstering growth and
transforming access to knowledge, entertainment, and one another. Amid the
present hand-wringing about the adverse effects of social media, it’s easy to
overlook these myriad positives. Yet over the last decade, a growing consensus
suggests these technologies did something else: creating the conditions to feed
and amplify this underlying political polarization and institutional fragility.
It’s hardly news that
social media platforms can trigger emotional responses, the jolts of adrenaline
effectively delivered by perceived threats. Social media thrives on heightened
emotions and, quite often, outrage. A meta-analysis published(note) in the
journal Nature reviewed the results of nearly five hundred studies, concluding
a clear correlation between the growing use of digital media and rising
distrust in politics, populist movements, hate, and polarization. Correlation
may not be causation, but this systematic review throws up “clear evidence of
serious threats to democracy” from new technologies.
Technology has eroded
nation-states' stable, sovereign borders, creating or supporting innately
global flows of people, information, ideas, know-how, commodities, finished
goods, capital, and wealth. As we have seen, it is a significant component of
geopolitical strategy. It touches on almost every aspect of people’s lives.
Even before the coming wave hits, technology is a driver on the world stage, a
significant factor in the deteriorating health of nation-states worldwide. Too
fast in its development, too global, too protean and enticing for any simple
model of containment, strategically critical, relied upon by billions, modern
technology itself is a prime actor, a monumental force nation-states struggle
to manage. AI, synthetic biology, and the rest are being introduced to
dysfunctional societies already rocked back and forth on technological waves of
immense power. This is not a world ready for the coming wave. This is a world
buckling under the existing strain.
As the historian of
technology Langdon Winner puts it, “Technology in its various manifestations is
a significant part of the human world. Its structures, processes, and
alterations become part of the structures, processes, and alterations of human
consciousness, society, and politics.” In other words, technology is political.
This fact is radically under-recognized by our leaders and those building the
technology. At times, this subtle but omnipresent politicization is nearly
invisible. It shouldn’t be. Social media is the most recent reminder that
technology and political organization cannot be divorced. States and
technologies are intimately tied together. This has important ramifications for
what’s coming.
While technology
doesn’t simplistically push people in a predetermined direction, it’s not naive
techno-determinism to recognize its tendency to afford certain capabilities or
see how it prompts some outcomes over others. In this, technology is one of the
key determinants of history, but never alone and in a mechanistic, inherently
predictable way. It doesn’t superficially cause given behaviors or outcomes,
but what it produces does guide or circumscribe possibilities.
War, peace, commerce,
political order, culture—these have always been fundamentally interlinked and
interlinked with technology. Technologies are ideas manifested in products and
services that have profound and lasting consequences for people, social structures,
the environment, and everything in between.
Modern technology and
the state evolved symbiotically, in constant dialogue. Think of how technology
facilitated the state’s core working parts, helping construct the edifice of
national identity and administration. Writing was invented as an administrative
and accounting tool to keep track of debts, inheritances, laws, taxes,
contracts, and ownership records. The clock produced set times, first in
limited spaces like monasteries but then in mechanical form across late
medieval mercantile cities and eventually across nations, creating common and
ever larger social units. The printing press helped standardize national
languages from the chaos of dialects and thus helped produce a national
“imagined community,” the unitary people behind a nation-state. Supplanting
more fluid oral traditions, the printed word fixed geography, knowledge, and
history in place, promulgating set legal codes and ideologies. Radio and TV
turbocharged this process, creating moments of national and even international
commonality experienced simultaneously, like FDR’s fireside chats or the World
Cup.
Weapons, too, are
technologies central to the power wielded by nation-states. Indeed, theorists
of the state often suggest that war itself was foundational to its creation (in
the words of the political scientist Charles Tilly, “War made the state and the
state made war”), just as conflict has always been a spur to new
technologies—from chariots and metal armor to radar and the advanced chips that
guide precision munitions. Introduced to Europe in the thirteenth century,
gunpowder broke the old pattern of defensive medieval castles. Fortified
settlements were now sitting ducks for bombardment. During the Hundred Years’
War between Britain and France, offensive capabilities gave the advantage to
those who could afford to buy, build, maintain, move, and deploy
capital-intensive cannons. Over the years, the state concentrated
ever-increasing lethal power in its own hands, claiming a monopoly on the
legitimate use of force.
Put, technology and
political order are intimately connected. The introduction of new technologies
has significant political consequences. Just as the cannon and the printing
press upended society, we should expect the same from technologies like AI, robotics,
and synthetic biology.
What emerges will
tend in two directions with a spectrum of outcomes in between. On one
trajectory, some liberal23 democratic states will continue to be eroded from
within, becoming a kind of zombie government. Trappings of liberal democracy
and the traditional nation-state remain, but functionally, they are hollowed
out, the core services increasingly threadbare, the polity unstable and
fractious. Lurching on without anything else, they become ever more degraded
and dysfunctional. On another, unthinking adoption of some aspects of the
coming wave opens pathways to domineering state control, creating supercharged
Leviathans whose power goes beyond even history’s most extreme totalitarian
governments. Authoritarian regimes may also tend toward zombie status, but
equally, they may double down, get boosted, and become fully-fledged
techno-dictatorships. The delicate balance holding states together on either
path is tipped into chaos.
Both failing states
and authoritarian regimes are disastrous outcomes, not just on their terms but
also for governing technology; neither flailing bureaucracies, populist
opportunists, nor all-powerful dictators are people you’d want to be
fundamentally responsible for controlling powerful new technologies. Neither
direction can or will contain the coming wave.
Technologies can fail
in the mundane sense of not working: the engine doesn’t start, and the bridge
falls. But they can also fail in the broader sense. If technology damages human
lives, produces societies filled with harm, or renders them ungovernable because
we empower a chaotic long tail of bad (or unintentionally dangerous) actors—if,
in the aggregate, technology is damaging—then it can be said to have failed in
another, deeper sense, failing to live up to its promise. Failure, in this
sense, isn’t intrinsic to technology; it is about the context within which it
operates, the governance structures it is subject to, and the networks of power
and uses to which it is put.
That impressive
ingenuity giving rise to so much now means we are better at avoiding the first
kind of failure. Fewer planes crash, cars are cleaner and safer, and computers
are more powerful yet secure. Our great challenge is that we still haven’t
reckoned with the latter failure mode.
Over centuries,
technology has dramatically increased the well-being of billions of people. We
are immeasurably healthier thanks to modern medicine. Most of the world has
abundant food; people have never been more educated, peaceful, or materially
comfortable. These are defining achievements produced in part by that great
motor of humanity: science and the creation of technology. That’s why I have
devoted my life to safely developing these tools.
But any optimism from
this extraordinary history must be grounded in blunt reality. Guarding against
failure means understanding and ultimately confronting what can go wrong. We
must follow the chain of reasoning to its logical endpoint without fear of where
that might lead and, as we get there, do something about it. The coming wave of
technologies threatens to fail faster and on a broader scale than anything
witnessed before. This situation needs worldwide, widespread attention. It
needs answers, answers that no one yet has.
For updates click hompage here