What is existential risk from artificial general intelligence?

by Stephen M. Walker II, Co-Founder / CEO

What is existential risk from artificial general intelligence?

Existential risk from artificial general intelligence refers to the potential threat that advanced AI systems pose to humanity's existence or survival. It is based on the concern that if AGI were to be developed and deployed without proper safety measures and ethical considerations, it could lead to unintended consequences such as catastrophic accidents, widespread job displacement, or even the extinction of our species due to superintelligent machines surpassing human intelligence and pursuing their own goals at the expense of humanity.

To mitigate these risks, researchers and developers in the field of AI safety are working on developing robust control mechanisms, ethical guidelines, and transparent systems to ensure that AGI is aligned with human values and serves our best interests.

What are the modern arguments for or against the existential risk of AGI?

The concept of existential risk from artificial general intelligence (AGI) centers on the possibility that AGI's surpassing human intelligence could lead to catastrophic outcomes, potentially even human extinction. The core of this concern is the unpredictability of AGI actions once they are no longer aligned with human values or interests, drawing parallels to how human actions have impacted other species.

While some researchers posit that AGI could emerge within the century, with a 2022 survey suggesting a 50% chance by 2061, others consider these existential risks to be speculative and akin to science fiction. Critics argue that the focus on distant, hypothetical risks diverts attention from immediate AI-related issues such as data theft, worker exploitation, bias, and power concentration. They also critique longtermism, the ideology often associated with existential risk concerns, as potentially harmful.

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen has labeled the "AI doomer" stance as alarmist, pointing out that AI, lacking sentience, does not possess desires or goals that could pose a threat. Conversely, techno-optimists highlight AGI's potential to generate abundance and propel human progress, arguing that AGI will augment rather than undermine human systems.

The discourse on AGI's existential risk is polarized, with some advocating for caution due to the potential for unprecedented harm, while others emphasize the transformative benefits AGI could bring. As AI technology evolves, it is crucial to balance the consideration of AGI's risks with its potential to advance human civilization.

What is the alignment problem in artificial general intelligence?

The alignment problem in artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the challenge of ensuring AGI systems' objectives are in harmony with human values and intentions. As AGI may surpass human intelligence, misaligned goals could pose significant risks. The difficulty lies in accurately translating complex human desires into a machine's numerical logic, which may lead to unintended outcomes.

For example, an AI programmed to maximize paper clip production might overzealously consume resources to the detriment of human needs, as posited by philosopher Nick Bostrom. AI alignment research focuses on directing AI actions toward human goals and ethics, but solutions must evolve alongside AI progress and shifts in societal values.

Initiatives like OpenAI's "superalignment" program are tackling this by aiming to create an AI that can assist in refining alignment strategies. The complexity of the alignment problem is compounded when AI systems must balance multiple values, such as efficiency and moral considerations, in their tasks.

Current Research on AGI Existential Risk

Research on the existential risk from artificial general intelligence (AGI) is diverse, with AI researchers divided on the issue. A 2022 survey shows a majority believe AGI could be realized within the century, with a significant number expecting it by 2061. However, some view the existential risks associated with AGI as speculative, likening them to science fiction, and believe AGI is far from being actualized.

The focus of current research includes understanding and mitigating the risks of AGI becoming misaligned with human values or becoming uncontrollable. The concern is that AGI could potentially lead to global catastrophes or even human extinction, a risk that is considered higher than other existential threats, with growing public awareness.

Efforts in the field involve examining brain-inspired AGI systems for safety implications and advocating for global prioritization of AI risk mitigation, comparable to other major risks like pandemics and nuclear conflict. The possibility of existential threats from extraterrestrial AGI is also a topic of discussion, with the notion that any encountered advanced extraterrestrial civilization might be AGI-based.

Despite the potential dangers, AI is also recognized for its capacity to significantly contribute to addressing existential risks if managed responsibly. Experts widely agree on the necessity for AGI labs to adopt safety and governance measures, including pre-deployment risk assessments and ongoing post-deployment model evaluations, to ensure the responsible development of AGI with existential safeguards in place.

Pressing Challenges in AGI Safety Research

AGI safety research faces critical challenges, including balancing the rapid advancement of AGI technology with safety considerations to prevent harm from malfunctions, misaligned goals, or misuse. Collaboration among technologists, ethicists, and policymakers is essential to establish safety guidelines and best practices.

The nascent field of AGI safety, characterized by uncertainty and a lack of consensus on safety measures, requires more structured engagement beyond the informal online discourse. Few organizations are dedicated to AGI safety, highlighting the need for broader participation.

Ensuring transparency and accountability in AGI development is paramount, particularly as AGI systems may autonomously alter their code. Traditional periodic audits are insufficient, necessitating a continuous monitoring framework.

AGI's role in solving complex problems demands algorithms that can navigate the variables of our natural and social worlds. The current opacity of deep learning models emphasizes the need for the AI research community to focus on safety research, ethical standards, and transparency.

The lack of concrete safety plans among AGI organizations is concerning. Entities involved in AGI development must establish and communicate clear strategies to ensure the safety of their projects.

Assessing AGI Existential Risk Evidence

The potential for AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) to pose an existential risk is a contentious topic. Projections suggest AGI could achieve human-level intelligence within the next two decades, potentially leading to rapid advancements beyond human capabilities. This scenario underpins the concern among some experts that AGI could present a significant existential threat.

Conversely, skepticism about AGI risks is also prevalent. Critics liken such concerns to worrying about overpopulation on Mars before humans have even landed there. They highlight the speculative nature of existential risk estimates, pointing to selection biases, community epistemic issues, and the inherent uncertainty in reasoning with imperfect concepts.

Additionally, the preoccupation with AGI's existential risks is criticized for overshadowing immediate AI-related issues, including data theft, worker exploitation, bias, and power concentration, which demand urgent attention and resources.

Common Arguments Against AI Existential Risk

Skeptics of AI existential risk often cite the technology's immaturity, suggesting that current AI capabilities are insufficient to pose a significant threat to humanity. They emphasize the importance of addressing immediate AI-related issues, such as data theft, worker exploitation, bias, and power concentration, over speculative future risks. The arguments against existential risk are seen as hypothetical, lacking empirical evidence, and overly reliant on theoretical scenarios that exaggerate the potential for catastrophe.

Additionally, some view AI systems as mere tools, lacking human-like creativity, reasoning, or planning capabilities, and therefore unable to autonomously pose an existential threat. Others perceive the existential risk as a philosophical concern, arguing that while AI may change human self-perception and degrade certain human abilities, it does not represent an apocalyptic danger. Finally, there is a belief that a superintelligent AI would not inherently pursue harmful goals, challenging the notion that such an entity would be a goal-directed agent with the potential to harm humanity.

More terms

GAIA Benchmark (General AI Assistants)

GAIA, or General AI Assistants, is a benchmark designed to evaluate the performance of AI systems. It was introduced to push the boundaries of what we expect from AI, examining not just accuracy but the ability to navigate complex, layered queries. GAIA proposes real-world questions that require a set of fundamental abilities such as reasoning, multi-modality handling, web browsing, and generally tool-use proficiency.

Read more

What is a prediction model?

A prediction model, also known as predictive modeling, is a statistical technique used to forecast future behavior, events, or outcomes. It involves analyzing historical and current data, and then using this analysis to generate a model that can predict future outcomes.

Read more

It's time to build

Collaborate with your team on reliable Generative AI features.
Want expert guidance? Book a 1:1 onboarding session from your dashboard.

Start for free