Artificial Intelligence and Its Dangers

 

People strive for a form of structure in which they find comfort and convivence. People’s differences pave the way for chaos and a structure becomes an essential instrument in handling the chaos. Diversity of suggestions such as monarchy and democracy are proposed to deal with the chaos, but every individual one of them is criticized by notoriously intelligent thinkers. The fundamental reason for such controversy relies on the obvious yet latent fact that every structure and ideology are faulty because people are faulty. This raises a question that begs to be answered; what kind of system is the most appropriate? However, this question does not have a rigid answer and tentative circumstances draw it to be almost impossible to answer. With the rising of technology, the significance of AI which is an abbreviation of Artificial Intelligence has been prudently emphasized. Some confidently consider AI to be the ultimate solution in finding the most appropriate structure in societies. Some regard AI to be a compensation of people’s faulty nature, and its compelling appeal derives from the fact that it aims for the most effective and efficient decision. However, it shouldn’t be neglected that people’s faulty nature bestows them with sentimentality which is one of the essential pillars of civilized society. AI has the indisputable potential to disrupt the harmony between people by neglecting emotions and moral values. In this essay, I shall analyze why AI poses a hazardous threat to humanity. I will argue that AI’s potential hazards stem from AI’s unpredictability which may turn it into a foe rather than an assistant and if not, it can induce laziness among individuals.

Artificial Intelligence portrays itself to be a potential threat to the human race because of its unpredictable nature. Artificial Intelligence’s appeal stems from its ability to make decisions by taking a surplus number of parameters into its account. Its fundamental structure resembles a very complicated calculator. It’s that structure that grants it the ability to predict the future and take decisions accordingly. Calum Chace touches upon AI’s potential to anticipate the future and attracts the reader’s attention to its eventual immense power. He states that “a mind, or collection of minds with cognitive abilities hundreds, thousands, or millions of times greater than ours would not make the foolish mistakes that bad guys make in the movies. It would anticipate our every response well before we had even considered them”. Chace’s meditation portrays AI as similar to an omniscient God who has immense power and superiority over people. He also implies that if AI turns to be an enemy it won’t make moves that people can predict or obstruct. Simply put, the pessimist outcome of the scenario where AI becomes hostile may mean the end of humanity. Besides, even hostility may not be needed to produce such a tragic outcome. Provided that people achieved to shape AI to be the benevolent and beneficial server of people, and people eliminated the scenario where AI becomes the foe of humanity, it is still dangerously vague whether AI will behave in the desired manner or not. The reason for such ambiguity stems from the fact that benevolence is not a rigid term and cannot be defined with a strict guideline. Chace subtly touches upon this dilemma and states that “Whether it be with reluctance, indifference, or even enthusiasm, the superintelligence may decide that it really has no choice but to remove humanity from the equation” Although Chace’s example is extreme, it is still unpredictable whether AI may decide to kill a portion of people to solve the problem of over-population. Also, Russel points out the AI’s superintelligence in her book named “Artificial Intelligence Hits the Barrier of Meaning” and draws her concentration on the hazardous nature of such intelligence. Dr. Russel proposes a rhetorical question that follows as, “What if a super-intelligent climate control system, given the job of restoring carbon dioxide concentrations to preindustrial levels, believes the solution is to reduce the human population to zero?” Russel’s rhetorical question unveils AI’s unpredictable nature and how it may turn itself into a foe rather than an assistant. Provided that AI possesses immense power on a global scale, we as people are left at its mercy. Russel’s view draws the reader’s attention to the fact that AI’s priorities cannot be rigidly set by its makers and it is the core reason why AI poses a hazardous threat to humanity.

 AI’s super-intelligent structure draws it to be utterly compelling not only because it will make sure to make the most efficient and practical move but also because it will compensate people’s faulty nature putting forward endless convivences inducing laziness among society. Chace in his Book named “Surviving AI Book The Ultimate Problem Solver” contemplates on the presumption that AI will resemble a sister that is gratuitously and excessively perfect. He portrays the sister’s functions as follows “AI’s cleverness enables it to solve all our personal, interpersonal, social, political and economical problems”. While this depicts AI to be an advantageous instrument in our lives, the cunning hazard is lying beneath the superficial layers. To elaborate, AI’s helpful nature introduces a variety of conveniences that will decidedly induce laziness to individuals of society. More importantly, the cognizance of AI being smarter, more efficient, and overall better than people, will drive humanity to an everlasting slothness. Chace expands on the AI’s lazy-inducing nature and states that “How will we react to the discovery that there is nothing we can do better than - or even remotely as well as - the superintelligence? In a real sense, anything that we might work to achieve would be rendered pointless”. Chace’s meditation on “discovery that there is nothing we can do better” unveils the idea that progress makes life meaningful and without it, life becomes “pointless”. In a way, AI may make life meaningless and it may obstruct any progress by people which may mean the end of the world of humanity and a start to the world of machines. Chace also dwells on the idea that there will be new species and they will be called post-humans. He says that “It is tempting to suppose that the people who became these fabulous creatures would no longer be human. Perhaps it would be appropriate to call them post-humans.” Chace’s estimate of what will happen to the human race touches upon the possibility that there will not be “humans” left. In the future, the possible transformation from humans to mechanized machines may pave the way for AI to be the king of the world. Although, those are only presumptions and rough estimates, AI’s possible danger to people and society is evident. Regardless of whether AI will directly be an enemy to us or not, it looks inevitable that it will induce laziness among people.

In conclusion, AI’s unpredictable nature opens up the possible destructive outcomes that may wipe out the human race on earth. It is this precise unpredictably that draws it to be not suitable in the government. People have sentimental values which are the basis of their ethical rules, and it is an ambiguity whether AI will follow those ethical rules. Or even worse, there is a great chance that those rules will not be fathomed by AI because of their tentative and changing nature. Ultimately, AI poses more threats than it proposes advantageous making it not worthy to accept in the government.