There are many potentially existential crises confronting the globe. The Ukraine war involves a major power with a nuclear arsenal and an erratic and unaccountable leader; the appalling war between Israel, another nuclear weapons power, and Hamas bears the risk of spreading to become a wider regional conflict involving Iran, which also has a nuclear programme; climate change, of course, could consign us all to oblivion in a few generations; and Artificial Intelligence (AI) might polish us all off a lot quicker.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
There must be a more positive note to strike about the world, but if so it’s passed me by.
Of these profound challenges, AI has arguably had the least attention and is among the most urgent. Most countries have little or no regulation or legislation to contain AI, and there’s no international agreement to deal with an emerging phenomenon that crosses borders instantly and silently.
This week, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is hosting an international gathering intended to kick-start international discussion about the benefits and perils of AI, and how one is maximised and the other kept at bay. The venue is Bletchley Park in southern England, once the base of Britain’s Second World War codebreakers so crucial to achieving victory over Nazi Germany.
As so often, the summit also has a political purpose. Sunak’s government is drifting, and his personal popularity is plummeting with an election probably about a year away. This is one way that the UK’s prime minister can suggest he’s a man of action, a leader for the digital era, seeking to spearhead a global response to an emerging issue. And he wants to position Britain as an AI superpower, a hub of technological excellence and best practice.
The Artificial Intelligence Safety Summit, to give the gathering its formal title, is intended to identify the risks posed by the rapid development of superintelligent technaisologies. The potential advantages are huge: speedy and reliable medical diagnosis, and perhaps treatment; the opportunity to phase out humdrum administrative work; and the advent of a new era of responsive technology.
Rishi Sunak. Photo: X/@RishiSunak
And on the other hand? Well, apart from the dislocation of tens of millions of people being forced out of work because their tasks can be undertaken at a fraction of the cost by AI, the technology has the potential to be used malevolently by organised crime, or terrorist groups, or hostile powers.
The technology could be deployed to develop more effective bioweapons or launch more powerful cyber attacks. And of course, the possibility that AI goes rogue and turns against those that created it is no longer simply science fiction.
Earlier in the year, more than a thousand AI innovators and experts publicly appealed for a pause on work of ‘giant’ AI systems. ‘Recent months have seen AI labs in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control’, they warned. ‘Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable.’
But it’s a difficult balance – no one wants to strangle technological innovation by excessive regulation, but simply standing back and letting the big tech corporations get on with developing AI feels like an abdication of responsibility.
The European Union (EU) has already drafted an AI Act that is expected to come into effect early next year and is described as the world’s first comprehensive AI law. It will, for example, limit the use of real-time facial recognition technology and give Brussels the power to close services which cause social harm. Just this week, US President Joe Biden issued an executive order that the US administration describes as ‘the most significant action ever taken’ on AI safety. India and many other countries have been reluctant to rush into AI regulation.
Among those attending Sunak’s AI summit on Wednesday and Thursday is US vice president Kamala Harris. China will be represented but it’s not clear at what level and whether Beijing will simply be listening or actively working towards a joint global response.
Normally, these big global summits have route maps negotiated over many months by representatives of the main participants. Not so at this summit. ‘There’s an understanding of the urgency and political will to take action’, said the head of an influential US-based political risk consultancy, ‘but near complete uncertainty about what the right policy response should be’.
Perhaps we should ask ChatGPT.
Andrew Whitehead is an honorary professor at the University of Nottingham in the UK and a former BBC India Correspondent.
