As good as we are in discovering, inventing, and innovating we may be worse in making sure we use our achievements wisely. There may be an evolutionary explanation that prioritizes acting before thinking about what comes next. Or we may trust that certain mechanisms in place will take care of any adverse effects. And yet, it seems that humans have been aware of this flaw all along and have tried to forewarn us.
Take for example the punishment Zeus inflicted on Prometheus for giving mortals the gift of fire. Was Prometheus punished for defiance and disobedience or because Zeus (in the minds of humans) feared that they would not be able to harness the power of this new force? Similarly, in Genesis, God punished Adam and Eve for disloyalty and defiance when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. What if, however, again the message here is that God wanted to protect humans from getting on a path of sinful acts that would take them out of Paradise?
And then, there is a historical fact that may again betray human disillusionment with new achievements. That’s the case of Gobekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey. Some 9000 years BCE, at the dawn of the neolithic age, a community of people erected the first monumental buildings we know of. And yet, 2000 years later, the inhabitants of that area filled the buildings with sad and rubble and abandoned them. Nobody knows for sure why. Some say it was because of a cultural shift or because religious beliefs changed. Or it could be that this new achievement fell short of the expectations of the people. It took several thousands of years before the first cities with temples and palaces appeared in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Was this long gap because people had learned something from their earlier exploits they did not want to repeat?
I came to these thoughts after reading a seemingly unrelated article about how some Asian countries (especially, Vietnam and Singapore) managed to deal with globalization in ways that posed less of a threat to their workers and their national identity. They turned their openness to the world to an opportunity to upgrade their economies and competitiveness. They invested in education and social programs and above all suppressed inequality by distributing the gains from economic growth more fairly. In other words, they saw the potential risks and put in place policies to mitigate their adverse consequences on their national fabric.
Contrast this approach to our own here in the US. In the 1980’s and 1990’s we deregulated our economy, primarily the financial system, and we moved full thrust into the globalization model. We did this believing that the economy and the market mechanism would work as the textbooks teach. The result was deindustrialization, the gutting of factory towns and the decay of the social fabric. Should we blame globalization or our lack of forethought in planning for its adverse effects? We now pay the price as we live through toxic politics that pit globalization against nationalism.
Now we stand before another challenge, that of the digital revolution spearheaded by the development of AI. By now a lot has been written about the potential risks, some of them characterized as apocalyptic. Should we pause further development of AI or think seriously about the consequences and plan so that we reap the good and avoid the bad? I fear that before we lose control to Superintelligence, we run the risk of ceding all consideration of the risks to a cadre of technocrats who feel entitled to decide for all of us.
Putting guardrails around applications of new technologies and inventions is nothing new in the modern era. We have done it with nuclear weapons, with numerous chemicals that go into our food or the environment, and very notably with biomedicine. When gene editing was invented in the early 1970s scientists came together in the Asilomar (CA) Conference and set rules of self-regulation as to what was permissible research and applications. When the Genome Project was developed in the 1990s, the US government set aside considerable funds from the budgets of the NIH (National Institute of Health) and the US Department of Energy to fund research and scrutiny of the ethical, legal, and social implications of gene editing. Presently, there are restrictions on the editing of hereditary (germline) genes for the purpose of reproduction.
Therefore, we have the right to ask “Why can’t we apply the same forethought and, if necessary, restrictions to the development and applications of AI?” Of course, we know the answer. Unlike those other areas of grave interest mentioned above, today’s research in AI and its applications has been captured by a few mega companies which by monetary and political means have managed to leave concerned politicians and the rest of us out of any meaningful planning and discussion.
This inaction is not for lack of the legal or institutional framework. First, we can use regulation under the principle “Do no harm.” Just like we restrict the use of medications or chemicals if they pose risks, we can also restrict and even prohibit digital technologies, including AI, if they are likely to be dangerous to human lives, health, and the social fabric. If we have laws that prohibit driving without an official inspection, shouldn’t we prohibit the sale of a robot or virtual assistant that can harm its user? Numerous experts have called for a careful examination of AI-related risks. Many of them have called for a pause until we know the full consequences of advanced models of AI.
We also have the tools to curtail the power of technocrats in shaping our future. Consider first the role of corporate governance epitomized by the powers vested in corporate boards. As they operate now, they are staffed with directors who practically serve at the pleasure of the chairman and CEO or a dominant shareholder. We need to seriously consider revamping corporate governance so that the public interest is represented where firm size or the type of a firm’s business raises the stakes for all of us.
Next, the market for corporate control, that is, the mechanisms under which firms are allowed to take over other firms must be strengthened and be applied as the laws originally intended. Unfortunately, recent litigation of anti-trust cases has foundered under a permissible stand by courts that has allowed mega-firms like Meta and Google to continue their predatory tactics of either eliminating their competitors by absorption or locking customers into their product ecosystem.
The reality is that despite the messages from myths or religious texts humans will continue to discover, invent, and innovate. However, our successful coexistence with our achievements will be possible only if we exercise wisdom in how to use the products of our intelligence.
Let's Reason 