In the field of artificial intelligence, doomerism has become an ingrained reaction to every development. The public tends to respond with apocalyptic fears, driven by both an instinctual resistance to the unknown and the influence of movies that portray AI as a destructive force. However, this doomerism serves as a distraction from the real risks that technology presents.
The recent call for a six-month ban on AI lab work, while unlikely to have a significant impact on AI development, has shifted the conversation towards the possibility of human extinction. This obsession with catastrophic outcomes is not only futile but also undermines meaningful discussions about the genuine dangers posed by technology.
Doomerism, in essence, is a form of advertising and hype. It follows a pattern seen in the past with predictions of technologies like WeWork, cryptocurrencies, and the metaverse. Silicon Valley often uses the apocalyptic narrative to assert its importance and relevance.
As someone who has worked with and reported on AI since 2017, I have encountered countless exaggerated claims. I’ve heard about the impending end of the trucking industry, China’s possession of superhuman AI, and even suggestions to automate medical practices like radiology. To maintain sanity in the face of such doomerism, I’ve adopted the principle of “I don’t believe it until I see it” and “once I see it, I believe it.”
While it is true that many engineers in the field subscribe to AI doomerism, they often lack an understanding of the broader social and cultural implications of their inventions. Elon Musk, a prominent signatory of the open letter, exemplifies this divide between technological brilliance and understanding human relationships. This disconnect highlights the need for interdisciplinary perspectives in the field of AI.
Certainly, there are valid concerns regarding AI, but they mostly extend beyond the technology itself. Misinformation and the impact of automation on the middle class are not new problems caused by AI; they are longstanding political and societal issues. AI may make generating fake content slightly easier, but the dissemination of misinformation remains the primary challenge. The regulation of AI is complex, but we already understand the social consequences of platforms like social media and should focus on concrete plans to regulate them.
Moreover, the widening wealth gap predates the advent of AI. Instead of fixating on an AI apocalypse, we should address the underlying issues of our economic system. Doomerism conveniently avoids discussions about the shortcomings of capitalism and the tough choices that need to be made.
Doomerism lacks substantive solutions; its proposals are often vague and unworkable. Calling for a six-month ban on AI, for instance, fails to account for the continuous progress and innovation in the field. To navigate the terrain of AI, we must move beyond fear and embrace a sense of awe. Let’s approach AI with curiosity and exploration, like Jean-Luc Picard in Star Trek, rather than succumbing to the fear-driven response of the Klingons. Understanding this alien technology requires us to grasp its true nature before jumping to conclusions. Perhaps, in doing so, we will discover its beauty and potential.