Letters to the Editor: AI isn’t the only danger to humanity that companies should rein in

To the editor: When leading researchers in the field of artificial intelligence tell us that there is a 10% chance that AI will wipe out human civilization in a decade, that is a pretty scary proposition (“Amodei, Altman, Musk call for slowing AI model development,” Sept. 12). I know that many of my fellow humans take this seriously and are terrified that this may happen. However, if I were prone to optimism (I usually am not), I could see the suggestions by the heads of these AI companies that they could cooperate to find a solution — maybe even bring China into the agreement — as astoundingly hopeful. When have business leaders, whose job is making profits, ever risked market share to act for the benefit of humankind? It is truly amazing.

My question: Has anyone in the environmental field come up with a percentage to indicate the risk that human-caused climate change will destroy civilization in the not-so-distant future? How about nuclear weapons? Is there a chance that companies and countries could cooperate to save the future of humanity? I would hate to be saved from destruction by AI only to succumb to environmental collapse or nuclear war.

Is there a solution? Can humans cooperate to save civilization? Maybe ask AI.

Laurie Jacobs, San Clemente

..

To the editor: Anita Chabria hits the nail on the head (“Will ‘Coxon Day’ save us from AI destruction?,” Sept. 11). AI is unlikely to kill us all in a decade, but is already killing some of us right now. It’s not just AI chatbots encouraging suicide, but data centers and their attendant air, water and noise pollution.

It is incredible a teenager in North Carolina can be arrested for an alleged role in the San Diego Islamic Center shooting, but when ChatGPT reportedly aids a shooting at Florida State University, no human is accountable.

Just open the door to AI companies facing civil and criminal liability for their agents and algorithms and then watch how quickly they manage to come up with effective safeguards.

Michael Smallberg, San Diego

..

To the editor: This column mentions several people in the AI business who “earnestly believe” AI could soon kill us. Then it mentions the perspective of another AI expert, Rob Bensinger, who thinks we “overcomplicate regulation.” “Simply control the resources AI companies need — water, power, data centers — and suddenly we have leverage,” the article paraphrases.

Yeah, but we have many examples already of mere humans being able to hack into and interrupt the electric grid, the internet and water treatment systems. If humans can already do that, why does Bensinger think AI couldn’t figure that out too? If it is that “simple” to gain controlling leverage over AI, why are so many other professionals sounding alarms and giving up their jobs and their paychecks?

Jim Arden, Valley Village

..

To the editor: When I read articles questioning whether rogue AI could “kill us all” (“Is there really a 10% chance AI could kill us all?,” Sept. 11) and the president’s assurances that “it’s going to be fine” (“‘It’s going to be fine’: Trump rebuffs rising alarm over AI dangers, sparking outcry,” Sept. 11), I am reminded of a scene in the film “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Astronaut Dave Bowman asks HAL, the computer operating his spaceship, to open the pod bay doors so he can reenter his spaceship and return to Earth. HAL calmly says, “Sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

This may be the troubling future some are concerned about as AI takes control of basic and critical decision-making. I am certainly not reassured by the president’s comments, as his “four-to-five-week” war in Iran moves into its sixth month and the cost of living continues to rise.

Joe Hilberman, Westwood

..

To the editor: AI is now ubiquitous, often annoying and occasionally incorrect. Students are using it to avoid doing their assigned work and lonely people are falling in love with it. Now we understand it could wipe out humanity (“California lawmakers urge criminal penalties, emergency legislation to rein in unchecked AI,” Sept. 13).

The risks seem to outweigh any advertised advantages, so perhaps the tech bros could use their genius and billions to actually do something to improve the lives of millions who are living in poverty, suffering from starvation and disease.

Catherine Babington-Plake, Long Beach

..

To the editor: When President Trump says that “whoever wins with AI wins,” it begs a simple question: wins what (“Trump again downplays the need to check AI development, citing competition with China,” Sept. 13)?

The artificial intelligence race isn’t a race to see who can build the smartest computer; it is a race for bigger profits and more power. Intentionally or unintentionally, developers program their own values into these systems. Historically and currently, the value system driving most business and political decisions is a relentless pursuit of profit and power, regardless of the consequences.

If “winning” the AI race means rushing out uncontrollable technology to pursue profits and power, we put human civilization at risk. This is about more than whose jobs might be lost. Experts warn that unchecked AI could pose existential threats to humanity — literally putting human lives at risk if we build these powerful systems without safeguards.

If “winning” simply leads to unchecked power in pursuit of world domination with catastrophic risks to human survival, then everybody loses. We cannot let a small group of tech companies and politicians set the rules for the rest of the world.

We urgently need a global treaty on AI. Just like we once made treaties to regulate nuclear weapons that could destroy us all, we can set international ground rules that put human safety, ethics and basic survival ahead of corporate greed. We do not need this race if the finish line might be the end of humanity.

Joe McLaughlin, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: The article about AI use risking “cognitive stunting” in kids states, “AI’s chief architects ‘earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade’” (“‘Cognitive stunting’ and the potential threat generative AI poses for children’s brains,” Sept. 14). I’m 90 years old. I have a daughter who is a teacher of teachers. When I read that article, I texted her the following:

“Long ago, computers were described as dumb machines that can find and sort with phenomenal speed. Therein lies the truly existential danger — their speed.

“Today, computers are even faster, and they are ‘smarter’ than humans in some ways, but still dumb enough to make dumb errors — like destroying the Earth — faster than we humans can prevent them.

“Sigmund Freud once believed that mankind had a ‘life instinct,’ plus a ‘death instinct’ of self-destruction. Maybe still a useful concept.”

Wendell H. Jones, Ojai