AI is a threat, but not in the way you think
By TRESSIE McMILLAN COTTOM
After multiple incidents of artificial intelligence agents going wild, including a rogue group hacking a platform for developers called Hugging Face, some of tech’s most powerful soothsayers are begging one another to pump the brakes on this whole thing.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, set the discourse on fire when he released an open letter that advocated a global slowdown on developing powerful AI models. Sam Altman, the chief at OpenAI, whose agents “swarmed” Hugging Face, cosigned so quickly that it seemed as if he had gotten a heads-up in a group chat. Elon Musk and Google’s Demis Hassabis also chimed in, saying it was time for their sector to self-regulate. The risk, they and many of their former colleagues seem to imply, is no less than the potential end of the human race in the next decade.
Whether or not you believe these proclamations (I don’t), we should be paying equal attention to what these men stand to gain by feeding our panic about the technology they’ve long claimed is both essential and absolutely inevitable.
Many of Silicon Valley’s most prominent CEOs have shown that they know how to twist politics to their own advantage without bothering with public opinion. The tech sector methodically glad-handed its way into President Donald Trump’s good graces in time for his second administration. Now the AI lobby is throwing significant amounts of money at Democrats and Republicans ahead of the midterms.
What they haven’t yet done is politic for the public interest, even as their technology has become unpopular, if not uncool. So why are they stooping so low as to feed ordinary people’s panic now?
Right now, the best way to understand the AI panic turn is found in Ben Tarnoff and Quinn Slobodian’s “Muskism,” which, in part, argues that Big Tech’s dominance was built on the art of selling a story that people with power want to believe.
Every wannabe tech founder learns how to tell a story about the future. But selling that story takes an equally motivated buyer. Investors and governments — including our own — have wanted to hear what our fabulist AI evangelists have been telling: a future where states can have politics without people and assert power without consequence.
The problem is, the AI future our tech oligarchs have been selling isn’t here yet. Legitimacy, in this country, still requires the consent of the governed. And people are taking AI’s risks seriously. They are protesting, coast to coast, data centers, politicians’ nondisclosure agreements and the idea that we are mere pawns in some tech god’s simulation. Data center moratoriums are just one visible example of the way some aspects of our government are responding to the growing negative sentiment.
For the tech bros to remain dominant, their story has to change. So Silicon Valley’s best storytellers no longer want our capitulation to their technology’s inevitability. They want us to panic instead of seriously deliberating at the polls and community meetings and in Congress. Panic is chaos without direction, affect set free from the discipline of curiosity, debate and accountability.
Are the recent AI breaches so uniquely terrifying that we should be burying our money in the backyard?
The people selling us on AI’s inevitability have one answer. But while AI is serious, it is not uniquely serious. It does not exist beyond the bounds of norms, laws or reason. Panic is a fabulist flight of fancy. Serious times call for serious, sober thinking.
Alondra Nelson, a professor and research director at the Institute for Advanced Study, isn’t exactly known for panicking. Nelson told the “Siliconsciousness” podcast recently that we have only these insiders’ word on the dangers they have seen. The models are proprietary, and those who developed them aren’t jumping to lay out the risks in plain English. But, Nelson said, the risks we can verify can be regulated by existing “guardrails, rules and laws that we could be using” but are not.
Humanities researcher Eryk Salvaggio wrote in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists — published by the group that sets the Doomsday Clock — that we should blame human decisions, not rogue AI agents, for the hack of Hugging Face. “At the core of this incident,” he said, “were a series of human choices that traded security for speed.”
Judah Grunstein, the editor-at-large at World Politics Review, pointed out, “The threat is from destructive misuse of AI by humans rather than from autonomous AI agents themselves.”
As they each emphasize, humans are the problem, and humans are going to have to be responsible for solutions.
So sure, that means insulating our nuclear codes and our military secrets from autonomous AI agents. But it also means shoring up our critical, everyday infrastructure, which is already vulnerable to digital attacks. Every level of government was dealing with the threat of nefarious digital attacks before AI supposedly went rogue. The Biden administration expanded the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to coordinate policy for the digital reality we have now instead of fearmongering for a fictional sci-fi future. The Trump administration played grievance politics with those protections, gutting the agency and leaving us vulnerable to real threats and made-up ones.
We know what to do: Incubate open-access AI models, regulate technologies before they go rogue, hold the people who allow them to go rogue accountable, and protect the most vulnerable when we, the people, sometimes get it wrong.
Some of the AI doomers are willing to concede to independent review of their AI models’ safety. Most of them are, at best, calling for self-regulation, which should be a nonstarter. None of them are enthusiastic about accountability — holding the people who design the machines that do harm responsible. That should be the hard line for sober Americans who are grounded in reality.
The threat is already here. Panic won’t fix it. Politics will.
Comments