Reconciliation Between Factions Focused on Near-Term and Long-Term Artificial Intelligence

by | 27 May 2017

Download Preprint PDF

AI experts are divided into two factions. A “presentist” faction focuses on near-term AI, meaning the AI that either already exists or could be built within a small number of years. A “futurist” faction focuses on long-term AI, especially advanced AI that could equal or exceed human cognition. Each faction argues that its AI focus is the more important one, and the dispute between the two factions sometimes gets heated. This paper argues that the presentist-futurist dispute is not the best focus of attention, and instead proposes a reconciliation between the two factions based on mutual interests.

Root perspectives. To examine the potential for reconciliation, the paper studies the perspectives at the root of each faction. The futurist faction has two root perspectives. One is an intellectual aspiration of building advanced AI, even if work towards this goal has little immediate practicality. The other is an ethical concern for long-term effects, which is combined with a belief that advanced future AI can have major long-term effects. In contrast, the presentist faction seeks to work on more practical, down-to-Earth matters. They focus on what AI can be built now or in the near future, whether they are developing AI technology or working on societal issues related to AI.

A reconciliation. Despite their differences, the presentist and futurist factions have a few things in common. First, they share a common interest in AI and belief of its importance, which distinguishes them from most other people. Additionally, there are significant parts of both factions that are concerned about the societal impacts of AI, and also parts of both factions that are more concerned with the AI itself. The paper identifies these as new factions: a “societalist” faction focused on societal impacts of AI and an “intellectualist” faction focused on the intellectual challenge of building AI. The presentist-futurist divide can be reconciled by focusing instead on the societalist-intellectualist divide. The paper argues in favor of the societalist faction because it is everyone’s responsibility to help society.

Opportunities to improve near-term and long-term societal impacts. The paper describes three opportunities for presentist and futurist members of the societalist faction to work together. Each opportunity improves societal impacts of AI over both the near-term and long-term. First, societalists can change social norms in AI so that more AI researchers care about the societal impacts of their work. Second, societalists can support technical research on AI design to make near-term and long-term AI safer and more beneficial to society. Third, societalists can support AI policy that addresses both near-term and long-term AI. These three opportunities offer fertile ground for collaboration among all people who care about the societal impacts of AI, regardless of whether they favor near-term or long-term AI. Pursuing these opportunities can be more productive than arguing over near-term vs. long-term AI. 

Academic citation:
Seth D. Baum, 2018. Reconciliation between factions focused on near-term and long-term artificial intelligence. AI & Society, vol. 33, no. 4 (November), pages 565-572, DOI 10.1007/s00146-017-0734-3.

Download Preprint PDFView in AI & SocietyView in ReadCube

Image credit: Buckyball Design


This blog post was published on 28 July 2020 as part of a website overhaul and backdated to reflect the time of the publication of the work referenced here.

Author

Recent Publications

Climate Change, Uncertainty, and Global Catastrophic Risk

Climate Change, Uncertainty, and Global Catastrophic Risk

Is climate change a global catastrophic risk? This paper, published in the journal Futures, addresses the question by examining the definition of global catastrophic risk and by comparing climate change to another severe global risk, nuclear winter. The paper concludes that yes, climate change is a global catastrophic risk, and potentially a significant one.

Assessing the Risk of Takeover Catastrophe from Large Language Models

Assessing the Risk of Takeover Catastrophe from Large Language Models

For over 50 years, experts have worried about the risk of AI taking over the world and killing everyone. The concern had always been about hypothetical future AI systems—until recent LLMs emerged. This paper, published in the journal Risk Analysis, assesses how close LLMs are to having the capabilities needed to cause takeover catastrophe.

On the Intrinsic Value of Diversity

On the Intrinsic Value of Diversity

Diversity is a major ethics concept, but it is remarkably understudied. This paper, published in the journal Inquiry, presents a foundational study of the ethics of diversity. It adapts ideas about biodiversity and sociodiversity to the overall category of diversity. It also presents three new thought experiments, with implications for AI ethics.

Climate Change, Uncertainty, and Global Catastrophic Risk

Climate Change, Uncertainty, and Global Catastrophic Risk

Is climate change a global catastrophic risk? This paper, published in the journal Futures, addresses the question by examining the definition of global catastrophic risk and by comparing climate change to another severe global risk, nuclear winter. The paper concludes that yes, climate change is a global catastrophic risk, and potentially a significant one.

Assessing the Risk of Takeover Catastrophe from Large Language Models

Assessing the Risk of Takeover Catastrophe from Large Language Models

For over 50 years, experts have worried about the risk of AI taking over the world and killing everyone. The concern had always been about hypothetical future AI systems—until recent LLMs emerged. This paper, published in the journal Risk Analysis, assesses how close LLMs are to having the capabilities needed to cause takeover catastrophe.

On the Intrinsic Value of Diversity

On the Intrinsic Value of Diversity

Diversity is a major ethics concept, but it is remarkably understudied. This paper, published in the journal Inquiry, presents a foundational study of the ethics of diversity. It adapts ideas about biodiversity and sociodiversity to the overall category of diversity. It also presents three new thought experiments, with implications for AI ethics.