Interestingly, many of the people pushing the theory that artificial intelligence could wreak Terminator-like havoc on Earth are also heavily invested in the technology’s success.
Elon Musk describes AI as “one of the greatest risks to the future of civilization,” and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman warns the U.S. Senate of the grave harm technology can cause. It’s clearly good business to do. A quiet suggestive tone about the existential threat AI poses to humanity.
They clearly have a strong interest in AI pudding. Despite recent advances, it is, after all, still a nascent technology, if not entirely nascent, with some of the “human-like” features expected by some big fans. It’s certainly far from being developed.
There’s at least one reason for that. The Atlantic’s technical editor Damon Velez recently wrote, “By discussing AI in terms of vague existential risks, Altman and others see one of the everyday effects we’re already seeing from technology. You will be able to avoid the department,” he said. For those involved in developing these tools, this is a smart way to put the ball in the court of lawmakers. ”
The threat to AI jobs, mostly in low-wage sectors such as call center operations and customer service functions, is far more pressing than anything else.
Forget Skynet and Blade Runner when you conceptualize the impact of AI on the planet. As author Ted Chan suggested in The New Yorker last month, think of McKinsey. In that context, he wrote, it’s not hard to see AI playing a similar economic function to McKinsey’s role in normalizing “the practice of mass layoffs as a way to drive stock prices higher.”
The threat to AI jobs, mostly in low-wage sectors such as call center operations and customer service functions, is far more pressing than anything else.
[ Elon Musk and other tech experts call for ‘pause’ on advanced AI systems ]
[ Una Mullally: As humans, we still have choices. We can free ourselves from the digital trap ]
But a quick Google search will make even the most enthusiastic sci-fi writer blush over the substantive content on job destruction and the (admittedly complex) role of technology in worsening global inequality over the past few decades. Headlines like this are more likely to hit. The truth is that these “everyday effects” that Velez writes about are actually much more mundane than the apocalyptic visions some advocate.
Sadly, given recent history, it is also far less likely to spur action on policymakers who help shape the political and economic landscape in which technology is leveraged.
