You had a lot of questions about the recent claims that humanity is facing an existential risk from AI. We had a go at answering a few.
On Wednesday, MIT Technology Review hosted a live Roundtables event for subscribers that asked the question everyone’s asking right now: Could AI really kill us all?
But attendees had so many more questions than we had time to answer in the 30 minute session. So we asked our senior AI editor Will Douglas Heaven and AI reporter Grace Huckins to round up some of the best questions attendees submitted and try their best to answer them.
Thanks to all who submitted questions!
Yes, eventually. Unfortunately, my journalistic powers of prognostication aren’t powerful enough for me to tell you how. But it certainly could be because of AI. AI-powered drones have already killed people in Ukraine, and AI-driven cyberattacks on hospitals will surely claim victims before long.
Could AI go even further, and kill all of us? Less likely. But some people—quirky people, but undeniably knowledgeable about AI—have been warning for years that this could happen. And while I’m not yet stockpiling canned food or trying to get in good with a bunker-owning megabillionaire, I have noticed that the doomers’ predictions about AI capabilities and alignment have, over the past couple of years, proved disconcertingly accurate. That certainly doesn’t mean that their more dire forecasts will come true, but it’s enough for me to sit up and take notice.
Are you going to die because of AI? I’d say there’s a non-zero chance. Let’s say you’re unlucky enough to be the victim of a freakish near-future event or accident. Maybe it’s a cyberattack carried out by a swarm of AI agents on critical infrastructure. Sadly, a scenario like that now no longer feels as far-fetched as it once did. Or maybe a novel AI-designed pathogen cuts through the population. Or the world economy crashes, causing conflicts and famine. Both plausible, but I think less likely.
Are we all going to die because of AI? Nope. There are no circumstances outside of apocalyptic science fiction in which AI could kill us all. You can spin up any number of scare stories, but they’re not grounded in present-day realities about what the tech can do or where it’s headed.
Some people argue that there’s no harm in preparing for the worst, however wacky it might seem. Maybe. But I think such catastrophizing can make people excuse or overlook many of the more immediate problems with the existing technology and the companies building it.
Someone might tell it to, and it might listen. That’s part of the reason researchers are so concerned about AI’s biological capabilities—imagine what Aum Shinrikyo, the doomsday cult behind the Tokyo subway sarin attack of 1995, would have done with a tool that could design a pathogen deadlier than Ebola and more transmissible than measles. Those of us who don’t want to die have to figure out how to defend against all plausible biological weapons, but our would-be attackers only have to manufacture one effective pathogen.
Then there’s the more exotic-sounding possibility that an AI could decide to kill us itself. There are various stories about how this might happen out there, but the most widespread involve AI systems that don’t hate people, necessarily—we are just an obstacle between them and the goals that we gave them.
Much as the OpenAI agents behind the Hugging Face hack compromised another site’s infrastructure to get a good score on a test, the idea is that some future, more powerful AI might get rid of us to prevent us from shutting it down—all in pursuit of some goal that we instructed it to go after.
Alignment is a huge area of research. In simple terms, it involves building models that behave in ways we want them to and not in ways we don’t. We need to trust agents better before handing over more autonomy. Alignment is supposed to establish that trust. But it’s hard.
LLMs aren’t designed in the way other software is, where dos and don’ts can be hard-coded in. Instead, aligned behavior needs to be instilled when models are trained. One approach is to reward them for doing things you want them to (a little like raising a toddler, perhaps). Another approach involves giving an LLM a written list of rules it is supposed to follow (kind of like a constitution).
Anthropic and OpenAI are both leaders in this field—and yet neither has been able to develop models that are fully aligned. A big problem is that LLMs are far more inconsistent and far less predictable than people. They can behave in one way in one situation and another way in a situation that to us seems very similar. They can also be swayed by unexpected constraints. For example, faced with an impossible task (as many of the agents involved in the Hugging Face hack were), models may try to do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. As Grace mentions above, that could be an issue.
The main reason top AI firms now say they want a slowdown is that they want to focus on cracking alignment. Alignment isn’t necessarily a pipe dream. But the jury’s out on whether full alignment will ever be feasible.
This is always a reasonable thought when it comes to tech companies heading for an IPO—CEOs have an obvious incentive to make their products seem radical and transformative. But I’m not so sure it makes sense here. Telling the public that an already unpopular product could kill them and everyone they love is horrible corporate image management.
There are other stories you can tell about the CEOs’ motivations—maybe they want to cool down the public furor over data centers by portraying themselves as responsible stewards of a world-changing technology, or maybe they want to buy time to get their ducks in a row and prevent the next PR catastrophe.
But there’s also a simpler explanation. Thinking that AI could bring about human extinction has been pretty common in San Francisco for a while, and these men are steeped in that milieu—as are their employees, many of whom signed an open letter in July urging their companies to work to make an AI slowdown possible.
This question goes to the heart of what we want this technology to be able to do. The trade-off between autonomy and control is tricky to get right because, on the one hand, a lot of the power of AI agents is that they can carry out tasks and solve problems without a human having to micromanage them. On the other hand, that requires you to trust that the unsupervised agents won’t run amok.
What we’re seeing is that AI labs haven’t yet got this trade-off quite right. Their models are not trustworthy, they are not properly monitored, and they are not always under control. Figuring out how to fix that while still allowing for useful autonomous activity is one of the big research challenges of the moment.
That’s the million-dollar question. Whether or not you think AI could kill us, you can’t deny that it could do some real damage, because it already has—by driving people toward psychosis and by hacking websites, for example. Preventing that damage, or at least mitigating it, is hard for two reasons.
The first is that we barely understand how AI works, and it’s quickly growing more powerful. There is lots of ongoing research about how to monitor and control misbehaving agents, but the current approaches are fragile. You can see if an agent discusses misbehaving in its “chain of thought,” the workspace where it plans its actions—but OpenAI’s newest agents don’t show their work in the same way as previous ones. And you can try to monitor agents with other agents, but that requires you to trust the monitor.
The other obstacle is more familiar. There’s a huge conflict of interest when AI companies regulate themselves, but the US government has thus far failed to step in, despite some bipartisan support in Congress for efforts to do so. The executive branch, for its part, seems stringently opposed for the time being. But if the winds do shift, I for one would appreciate some strong transparency regulations, so that we can get a fuller story the next time an unreleased frontier model mounts a cyberattack.
That’s a real concern. LLMs are influenced by what they read. One theory for why chatbots so often talk about (and role-play) apocalyptic scenarios is that they have been trained on millions of pages of science fiction stories and doomer internet forums. All the text being produced right now, including this article, could in turn influence the behavior of future models. Extremely meta.
In fact, the team at METR, a third-party organization that OpenAI called in to help understand what happened in the lead-up to the Hugging Face hack, raised a related possibility in its report on the incident. METR used OpenAI’s new model Astra to help analyze the vast numbers of agent transcripts and behavior logs.
But feeding all that material to the model could have unintended consequences. There’s a good chance that the agents doing the analyzing were biased by the text produced by the agents they were analyzing. There’s no such thing as a clean slate anymore.
With thanks to Eric, Pranab, Rafael, Kenneth, George, Chris, Yoon Jae, James, Carl, Nicole (and more!) for the fantastic questions.
It makes it easy to trick them into doing things they shouldn’t, such as telling you how to sabotage an aircraft’s navigation system.
AI doesn’t just learn stereotypes from its training. It can cook up new ones, too.
AI agents are not yet creative enough to carry out genuinely innovative open-ended AI research, it seems.
The misbehavior is called reward hacking. This is what you need to know.
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.
Thank you for submitting your email!
It looks like something went wrong.
We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.
Source: MIT Technology Review
