Is AI control inevitable? A technical expert says no, of course

Anyone who has followed the rhetoric about artificial intelligence in recent years has heard one form or another of the claim that AI is inevitable. The common themes are that AI is here, it’s very useful, and people with disabilities are harming themselves.

In the business world, AI advocates tell companies and workers that they will be left behind if they fail to incorporate AI productivity into their operations. In science, AI advocates promise that AI will help cure hitherto incurable diseases.

In higher education, AI proponents advise educators that students must learn to use AI or risk becoming uncompetitive when it comes time to get a job.

And, in terms of national security, AI champions say the nation invests heavily in AI weapons, or it would be unlikely to face the Chinese and Russians, who are already doing so. .

The argument for these different areas is essentially the same: The era of AI skepticism has come and gone. Technology will shape the future, whether you like it or not. You have the choice to learn to use it or be left in that future. Anyone who tries to stand in the way of technology is as hopeless as the handloom weavers who resisted machine tools in the early 19th century.

For the past few years, my colleagues and I at Mass Boston’s Center for Applied Ethics have been studying the ethical questions raised by the widespread adoption of AI, and I believe the debate is inevitable. misleading.

History and results

In fact, this claim is the latest version of a clear vision of technological development. It is the belief that new things cannot be stopped once people start working on them. In other words, some genes don’t go back into their bottles. The best thing you can do is use them to your advantage.

This deterministic approach to technology has a long history. It has been used in the influence of the printing press, as well as the rise of cars and the equipment they require, among other improvements.

But I believe that when it comes to AI, the argument for technological determinism is both overstated and oversimplified.

AI in the field

Consider the argument that businesses can’t afford to stay out of the AI ​​game. In fact, a case has yet to be made that AI delivers significant productivity gains to firms that use it. A report in The Economist in July 2024 suggests that so far, technology has had almost no economic impact.

The role of AI in higher education is also still a very open question. Although universities have, in the past two years, invested heavily in AI-related projects, evidence suggests that they may have jumped the gun.

Technology can serve as an interesting educational tool. For example, creating a Platoon chatbot that allows students to have a text conversation with a bot that pretends to be Plato is a fun trick.

But AI is already starting to take away some of the best tools teachers have for assessment and developing critical thinking, like writing assignments. The college essay is going the way of the dinosaurs as many teachers give up the ability to tell if their students are writing their own papers. What is the argument for the cost of giving up writing, a valuable and useful cultural skill?

In science and medicine, the application of AI seems promising. Its role in understanding the structure of proteins, for example, will be important for treating diseases. Technology is also changing medical imaging and has helped speed up the drug discovery process.

But that happiness can be overwhelming. AI-based predictions about which cases of COVID-19 will be severe have failed completely, and doctors are relying heavily on the technology’s diagnostic capabilities, often against their better medical judgment. And so, even in this area, where the potential exists, the ultimate impact of AI is unclear.

National security, the argument for investing in AI development is compelling. Because the stakes can be high, the argument that if the Chinese and Russians are developing AI-powered autonomous weapons, the United States will not be able to back down, has real value.

But surrendering completely to this line of reasoning, however tempting, would cause the US to ignore the disproportionate impact of these systems on nations too poor to participate in the AI ​​arms race. Big governments can use technology in conflicts in these nations. And, of course, this argument emphasizes the possibility of partnering with adversaries to limit military AI, favoring an arms race over arms control.

One step at a time

Assessing the importance and potential risks of AI in these different areas requires some skepticism about the technology. I believe that AI should be embraced in a weak and uncertain way rather than subjecting itself to clear claims of inevitability. As you carefully make this decision, there are two things to keep in mind:

First, companies and entrepreneurs working on artificial intelligence have a clear interest in technology that is considered inevitable and necessary, since they make a living from its adoption. It is important to be aware of who is making the inevitable requests and why.

Second, it is important to study recent history. In the last 15 years, smartphones and the social networking tools that work on them were considered a fact of life – a technology that is changing in an inevitable way. Then data began to emerge about the mental health risks they posed to young people, especially young girls. School districts across the United States began banning phones to protect the attention span and mental health of their students. And some people have returned to using flip phones as a lifestyle change to avoid smartphones.

After a long experiment in children’s mental health, driven by claims of technological determinism, Americans changed course. What seemed fixed changed. There is still time to avoid repeating the same mistake with artificial intelligence, which may have greater consequences for society.