Earlier this month, government and media institutions around the world turned their attention to AI extinction based on the completely unsubstantiated tweet of a 27-year-old Anthropic researcher whose understanding on how AI will impact the world has
been shaped by a sincere yet flawed mindset. His post confidently claimed that “the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” And his belief was echoed by other frontier lab employees engaged in actively building the technology. This isn’t meant to single out Jacob Coxon. In fact, he is an archetype of today’s tech bro. Coxon is the existential-risk everyman — his delivery of the doomsday message mirrors everyday conversations people working in AI have with those in the ever-growing AI doomer community. The era of the pushy startup bro is over. Now we are in the era of the awkward academic softly informing us of humanity’s demise.
I’ve worked in ethical and responsible AI for a decade, and it seems that the technology hype cycles move faster and faster, and the tech pop-culture opinions get more baffling. For people like myself who have spent time outside the walled gardens of the academia-to-AI pipeline, the conversations we have in tech are mind-bending. Within ideologies like effective altruism, very earnest and brilliant young minds unironically debate the purpose of putting on sunscreen if AI is only going to kill us all. And yet, these same minds spend countless hours imagining ways in which AI can make our lives more optimized and efficient — like Sam Altman’s tweet about using AI to make a “podcast” of your child’s life, which was met by the general public with ridicule; why not just talk to them? AI can serve as a girlfriend who never argues or disagrees with you; a best friend who always tells you how wonderful your ideas are; a streamlined replacement for messy democratic processes; or a superior way to poll individuals or run focus groups without ever talking to a real human. For people who are so concerned about the fate of humanity, the doomers seem to not particularly like humans.
There is a patronizing tone to both the community that wants to build AI at all costs, and the community that defines AI safety as protection from an “AI gone rogue.” In both cases, there is a disdain for “kitchen table” problems that the average person faces when considering an AI future — things like the impact of AI on children’s minds, whether or not their jobs will be automated away, and whether data centers will ruin the environment. This endpoint is unsurprising, as it stems from the ongoing, uncritical acceptance of big tech’s dominance. The way it’s framed, both the heroes and the villains can only come from the tech community.
Elon Musk’s 2022 takeover of Twitter (where I was the Engineering Director of Machine Learning Ethics, Transparency, and Accountability) seemed to mark a tipping point where Big Tech became aligned with the Trumpian attack on rights, liberties, and freedom, ushering in a world in which the worst men prevailed. Musk’s open disdain for basic online safety, ethical and responsible use, seemed to give permission for other companies to engage in disproportionate layoffs of the teams ensuring tech users weren’t manipulated by algorithms, subject to coordinated misinformation campaigns, defrauded, or harassed. At the same time, the last few years have seen rapid and unchecked advancement of generative AI technologies into workplaces, schools, and private and public life. And now, the definition of “safe” AI has become warped and distorted from real-world human situations — like job automation, misinformation, or algorithmic bias — to fantastical extinction-level stories funded and orchestrated by billionaires.
Approximately three times a day last week I had to answer a reporter asking the question, “Are you scared that AI will kill us all? If not, why?” My instinct is to respond logically and rationally: AI does not have intent or desire, AI would not be able to access physical institutions in order to set off a bioweapon, and no research to date has demonstrated the extreme extinction-level capabilities to warrant these warnings. In order to set off a bioweapon, for example, AI models (without people) would somehow have to access sensitive and highly restricted material, enter incredibly sophisticated laboratories, operate this equipment, and determine mechanisms of release. When you follow the logical pathway, even as a layperson, this likelihood seems quite slim.
But that doesn’t answer a deeper question. AI may not end humanity with a nuclear weapon, but AI may end humanity by making us incapable of connecting with others, rendering us reliant on the technology to tell us how to feel and what to think, ruining our environment, algorithmically lulling us into homogeneity of appearance, thought, and preference, and creating a punitive surveillance state.
And, somehow, I’ve realized, I’m no longer scared of that either.
Something very interesting happened this year that has given me hope, and it lies in the comments section of the same media articles that uncritically repeat what three tech CEOs say as if it were gospel. Normies have begun to recognize how condescending Big Tech is, and it’s motivated them to push back. My new favorite and inspiring hobby is to skip over the article and hit “view comments,” where I can see gems like, “It makes sense that the owners hype the fantastical risks, because it feeds the narrative of an unprecedented tech transformation singularity. Rather than the socio-economic event we have, a trillion dollar global nuisance spewing mediocrity and dysfunction.” (Thanks, Steve from California.) Or, “If AI is such a monster that threatens to wreck humanity, what if people just rejected AI and refused to use it? People have the power.” (That’s right, Pauline from San Francisco!)
And we’re not just getting snarky in the comments section. Voters in Texas are threatening to vote Democrat if the Republican incumbents support the development of data centers. New York City instituted a moratorium on AI in schools after parent groups and advocacy organizations rallied against city guidelines for AI use that they felt were insufficient. And, research has shown that consumers are rejecting AI-embedded goods; in one study, 28 percent said they believe genAI would benefit consumers the least. Poll after poll show people do not want AI without agency. They are also clear and articulate in what they want and do not like. They want economic security and mistrust workforce automation. They think AI will make their information less secure, and they want data protection. Three-fourths don’t trust the output of AI systems to be fair or accurate. They want to protect creative thought and individuality. And, they’re not waiting around for someone else to do it.
The Silicon Valley mindset — one of disdain for the regular person — has been validated for decades with unprecedented wealth, power, and control. Artificial Intelligence has become the apex of this phenomenon. But, for all the raw power and control held by a handful of men, I fully believe they will stand no chance against regular people, who are fed up with being pushed around.
Dr. Rumman Chowdhury is the Executive Director of the Independent AI Evaluation Foundation, and the former United States Science Envoy for AI in the Biden Administration.
Click here to read the full article.
