In a recent interview, James Cameron, the director of hits such as the Terminator movies and Avatar, indicated that premises for films once considered science fiction are now becoming science fact. He expressed real concern that the warnings about artificial intelligence (AI), which were the premise of the Terminator movies, are coming to pass. Cameron worries about the impact on society and highlights the need for ethical considerations and regulation. There is indeed much debate about safety concerns, with many people sensing the need to slow down the rapid pace of development.
One discussed position is for governments to intervene, utilizing regulatory tools to oversee the deployment of AI, akin to “putting on reins” so this horse doesn’t get away from us. It’s also important to note concerns about these AI models falling into the hands of people with nefarious intentions. The fear is that potential damages caused by these bad actors could be immense. Another concern is the impact on jobs. Will AI cause massive unemployment? Recently, the pace of robot development has skyrocketed, and their entry into the workforce is undeniably imminent.
However, many naysayers don’t trust the motives of the government. They believe potential regulatory practices would favor large tech companies with closed-source models over open-source models, potentially crushing the democratization of the technology. Open-source code is available to the public at large and can be built upon by anyone, thus allowing broad and cheap access to the tools. This availability could potentially decrease the time it would take to solve some of the world’s pressing problems, like curing cancer. On the other hand, closed-source models keep their methods and codes, including the all-important “weights” utilized to drive the model, proprietary.
Points made by both sides are valid, and it’s important to address the issues. However, another dynamic that lands on this debate like a 747 at a rural airport is the approaches taken by other governments, particularly those deemed hostile to the world. What if a country like the U.S. puts the brakes on further development to take a more careful approach? Will potential adversaries follow suit? Undoubtedly not.
This could leave countries left behind in an extremely vulnerable position. This technology is arguably beyond anything that has preceded it, including nuclear weapons. An intelligence way beyond imagination, in the hands of a bad government, could quickly bring the demise of the perceived “good guys” in this scenario, provided the intelligence doesn’t likewise turn on its creator country.
The bottom line is the genie has escaped the bottle, and there’s no putting it back. So, creating a balance that properly weighs all these factors is of utmost importance and urgency.
