AI Doomers: Playing With Fire in Technology Risks

When OpenAI’s ChatGPT emerged in late 2022, it quickly captured the attention of mainstream America, leading to an outpouring of warnings from industry leaders. Executives from top AI companies expressed concerns about a groundbreaking technology that they claimed could pose serious risks to society. These warnings encompassed more than just digital security; they hinted at the potential for AI to threaten global safety and stability.

From the outset, it became apparent that these alarming messages served dual purposes: they were both a genuine expression of concern and a savvy marketing strategy. In a bid for regulation, AI executives went so far as to testify before Congress about the frightening implications of their innovations, while simultaneously promoting their products to the government. Now, however, these same leaders are urging the public to stay calm and composed.

Chris Lehane, the global policy chief of OpenAI, recently engaged in a candid interview with the San Francisco Standard, following an incident involving an attack on CEO Sam Altman’s residence.

Lehane stated, “Some of the conversation out there is not necessarily responsible,” and emphasized that the dissemination of certain thoughts and ideas could lead to significant consequences.

His remarks were in response to an alarming event where a young man named Daniel Moreno-Gama, aged twenty and hailing from Texas, was charged with throwing a Molotov cocktail at Altman’s home prior to attempting to breach OpenAI’s headquarters, where he smashed the glass doors with a chair.

According to police reports, Moreno-Gama was found in possession of an anti-AI document, indicating that his motivations were rooted in fears about artificial intelligence and its potential for existential threats. The Wall Street Journal noted that he had advocated for “Luigi’ing some tech CEOs,” referencing Luigi Mangione, who faces murder charges for the death of UnitedHealth’s CEO.

A second troubling incident occurred just two days later, when two individuals reportedly discharged a firearm near Altman’s home. This case is still under investigation, although the initial suspects have been released from custody.

Lehane categorizes public sentiment into two distinct factions: those who believe that AI represents a transformative force for good, promising a future of abundance and leisure, and those he refers to as “doomers,” who harbor a profoundly negative outlook on humanity’s prospects.

According to Lehane, the so-called AI doomers simply lack proper understanding of the benefits this technology can provide. “Our job at OpenAI and in the AI space — and we recognize we must improve — is to clarify to the public why this innovation will be beneficial for individuals, their families, and society as a whole,” he remarked during his discussion with the Standard.

However, it is challenging to accept this perspective seriously in light of the alarming statements made by figures like Altman. This dialogue around AI risks and rewards did not emerge in 2022; back in 2015, Altman himself warned, “I think that AI will probably, most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world. But in the meantime, there will be great companies created with serious machine learning.”

How can one simply overlook such assertions from influential leaders? The dilemma presents two options: either dismiss Altman’s concerns as frivolous and advocate for inaction, or acknowledge the gravity of tech leaders’ warnings that the innovations they are developing could indeed lead to catastrophic outcomes. This leads to the pressing question: what can be done in response?

How can we shape our destiny in the age of AI?

In dystopian narratives, we often see the consequences of unchecked technological advancement. For instance, in Terminator 2: Judgement Day, the character Sarah Connor grapples with the decision to eliminate the researcher responsible for initiating Skynet and the ensuing machine uprising. Despite her internal conflict, she ultimately convinces the researcher to assist in accessing and destroying the technology that could bring about humanity’s demise.

Altman has also voiced concerns about the potential for AI to “design novel biological pathogens” and has signed a letter underscoring the “risk of extinction” if AI remains unregulated. However, he has contended that it is critical for the U.S. to lead in the development of these powerful technologies, arguing that allowing geopolitical rivals to do so carries its own set of dangers.

In 2023, Altman articulated, “A misaligned superintelligent AGI could cause grievous harm to the world; an autocratic regime with a decisive superintelligence lead could do that too.”

In an effort to seek clarity on his statements regarding existential threats, I utilized Altman’s own product, ChatGPT, to inquire whether he had mentioned rogue AI or apocalyptic scenarios during his appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast. Amusingly, ChatGPT incorrectly claimed he had not participated in that episode. However, Altman indeed featured in Episode 2044 of the Joe Rogan Experience, which debuted on October 6, 2023.

Upon correcting ChatGPT, it delivered the now-familiar acknowledgment of my correction. It provided quotes such as:

• “There are risks… if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.”
• “The thing that I worry about is we lose control of the systems…”
• “This could go really, really wrong… like lights-out wrong.”

Interestingly, the last quote does not appear in the YouTube transcript for that episode. However, Altman did express a similar sentiment during an interview with the StrictlyVC podcast, stating, “The bad case—and I think this is important to say—is, like, lights-out for all of us.” This slight variation highlights the ongoing challenges AI systems face in accurately reflecting human experience and dialogue.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has echoed similar sentiments, warning earlier this year to Axios that, “Humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it.” Amodei has expressed his fears regarding “AI-enabled authoritarianism.”

Moreover, he has cautioned that anyone with a background in STEM can potentially create a bioweapon using AI models and has called for strong guardrails. This demand for restrictions has resulted in difficulties for Anthropic, as the Pentagon blacklisted the company and is in the process of removing Claude from its systems due to Amodei’s refusal to eliminate protections against the use of Claude for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapon systems.

If an individual were to claim that they had developed a tool capable of ending the world, one would expect immediate repercussions, including potential arrest. This notion was suggested to me informally some time ago, and I wish I knew its source, as it resonates profoundly.

Consider this scenario in any other context. If someone professes to have created a weapon that could go rogue and literally annihilate life on Earth, would the federal government merely respond with light regulations? Or would the executives responsible for such a dangerous technology face immediate legal action?

Why is the threat of job displacement a danger to humanity?

Beyond the specter of Skynet, we must confront the urgent issue of job displacement. Numerous companies have cited AI as a justification for layoffs over the past year, although some may exploit this narrative as a convenient excuse. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that AI has matured to a point where it can perform tasks such as written communication and other white-collar work, leading to substantial disruptions in the labor market.

AI executives are vocal about the impending disruptions, consistently urging the government to intervene while simultaneously lobbying against regulatory oversight. Elon Musk epitomizes this contradictory stance; his company, xAI, develops the Grok AI chatbot.

“Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI,” Musk remarked on Friday. “AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.”

I have previously contended that it is absurd for Musk to assert that a world of utopian abundance will be provided by the government. During his tenure as an advisor to President Trump last year, Musk contributed to the dismantling of USAID, slashed funding for critical programs, and criticized individuals he accused of exploiting social services.

His so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) facilitated the elimination of approximately 300,000 federal positions and he made it his mission to advocate against government assistance for those deemed unworthy. Now, this is the same individual claiming that we should not be concerned about AI because the government will provide free financial support? That is simply ludicrous.

Why would anyone attempt to market a product that they claim will displace jobs? The message seems directed more towards investors, government officials, and those purchasing enterprise software rather than the general public. The focus should be on enhancing user experience, like making avatars resemble characters from Studio Ghibli films.

How do unelected elites shape our future?

The AI leadership is marketing their innovations as inevitable. A crucial part of their narrative asserts that there is no way to halt this technological advancement. They expect the public to accept this reality while finding ways to adapt to a system in which AI leads to job losses. These oligarchs—who are undeniably vying for supremacy within the ruling class—are not elected representatives, yet they will dictate the nature of our lives in the near future, be it in a year, five years, or twenty years, if we survive the impending AI upheaval.

Altman recently penned a blog post in the wake of the attack on his residence, sharing a photograph of his husband and child “in the hopes that it might dissuade the next person from throwing a Molotov cocktail at our house, no matter what they think about me.” This gesture seems aimed at humanizing himself in an effort to deter further acts of violence.

Regardless of the outcome, it appears that the AI executives have maneuvered themselves into a precarious position. They have publicly acknowledged that their products possess the potential to bring about catastrophic consequences. In a sense, they have been the doomers when it served their interests. Now, we appear to be entering a new chapter where these same individuals who warned us about the perils of AI are urging us to concentrate solely on the purported benefits for society, which, so far, remain largely unsubstantiated.

It remains uncertain how one might effectively reverse the prevailing doomer narrative surrounding AI.