There's A Greater-Than-50% Chance AI Wipes Out All Of Humanity By 2050, One Advisory Finds
In late March, no lesser mortal human beings than Goldman Sachs equity research took a deep dive into the implications of AI for the world (and beyond).
The magnum opus led readers through the evolution of AI...
... to the promise of AI, which now "increasingly outperforms human benchmarks"...
Their shocking conclusion: AI will lead one-third of a billion layoffs (at least) in the US and Europe. Think of it as the robotization of the service sector.
Specifically, according to Jan Hatzius, "using data on occupational tasks in both the US and Europe, we find that roughly two-thirds of current jobs are exposed to some degree of AI automation, and that generative AI could substitute up to one-fourth of current work. Extrapolating our estimates globally suggests that generative AI could expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs to automation" as up to "two thirds of occupations could be partially automated by AI."
And while Goldman does everything it can to spin the data in a positive light, with the mass layoffs being offset by "a boom in labor productivity that significantly increases global output", with widespread AI adoption eventually driving a 7% or almost $7tn increase in annual global GDP over a 10-year period.
However, as great as $7 trillion sounds... we would have to survive it to enjoy it (and by 'we', we mean 'all of humanity') and that's where BCA Research's latest report takes up the story: ChatGPT And The Curse Of The Second Law.
Here's the punchline:
The safety risks around AI are huge, and we think there is a more than 50/50 chance AI will wipe out all of humanity by the middle of the century.
So how does BCA Research's team get there?
Most discussions of AI extrapolate linearly from what AI can do today to what it can do tomorrow. But AI’s progression is following an exponential curve, not a linear one, meaning that advances could come much faster than expected
AI Is Different
If AI follows the same trajectory as other major technological revolutions, we may not see major economy-wide productivity gains from AI until the 2030s or later.
That being said, there are reasons to think that AI's impact could come much sooner. A recent study by Erik Brynjolfsson and his co-authors revealed that productivity rose by 14% among customer service workers at a major software firm after they were given access to generative artificial intelligence tools.
The thing about those earlier technological revolutions is that they were focused on the application and dissemination of pre-existing knowledge. In contrast, the AI revolution has the potential to lead to the creation of new knowledge – knowledge generated by machines rather than humans.
To be sure, this has not happened yet. ChatGPT still functions as a glorified autocomplete feature, using its algorithm to add word after word, sentence after sentence, to a running dialogue from a massive library of text. Yet, even with this limited functionality, it has managed to show what a recent Microsoft research paper described as “sparks” of general artificial intelligence.
While the investment frenzy over AI has already begun, the economic impact of AI is not yet visible in the productivity data...l
The Last Thing Humans Ever Invent
The fact that AI minds are nothing like human minds is irrelevant. A plane is nothing like a bird. Yet, the former can still fly much faster than the latter.
If models such as ChatGPT ever reach the point where they can train themselves – much like Deepmind’s AlphaZero can train itself to master chess without ever being taught the rules of the game – then they will be able to recursively improve themselves at an astronomically fast rate. To some extent, this is already happening.
Imagine an intelligence that can evolve from an initial IQ of 1. It would take five doublings to reach an IQ of 32, which is still far too low to function in a modern technological world. But it would only take three more doublings to reach an IQ of 256, which is far above the IQ of any human who has ever lived. AI has been improving exponentially for many years, but it is only now that we have reached the point along the curve where it can surpass humans on a wide variety of cognitive tasks (Chart 7).
This highlights a key shortcoming of most discussions of AI’s probable impact on society and the economy. They extrapolate linearly from what AI can do today to what it can do tomorrow. But AI’s progression is following an exponential curve, not a linear one, meaning that advances could come much faster than expected. In fact, AI’s progression will probably be hyperexponential, with the time between performance doublings shrinking from years to perhaps weeks or even hours. Just as the investment community and the broader public were blindsided by the exponential increase in cases during the early days of the pandemic, they will be blindsided by how quickly AI transforms the world around us.
A Phase Transition
It does not matter if you can run the 100-meter dash in 11 or 12 seconds. However, it does matter if you can run it in 9 seconds or 10 seconds, because the difference between the two times will determine if you get an Olympic gold medal or a participation ribbon. By the same token, water is just water if its temperature is 80 or 90 degrees Celsius. But when the temperature hits 100 degrees, a “phase transition” occurs: it becomes steam. Humanity may be on the brink of such a phase transition.
The human population barely grew until the advent of farming around 10,000 BC. Following the Agricultural Revolution, global population growth accelerated to about 2.5% per century. With the start of the Industrial Revolution, global population growth jumped 40-fold to 1% per year. As humanity finally exited the Malthusian trap, per capita income began to rise much more quickly than the population. Since 1800, global GDP has risen by 2.8% per year for a cumulative increase of 50,000% (Chart 8).
If humanity survives the transition to superintelligent AI, the impact on growth could be comparable to what occurred first during the Agricultural Revolution, and later during the Industrial Revolution. Both revolutions experienced a 30-to-100-fold increase in GDP growth relative to the previous epoch.
New technologies and new industries will proliferate. Problems that once seemed intractable, such as how to stop and reverse aging, could be solved overnight. Before ChatGPT, it seemed unlikely that such a phase transition would begin anytime soon. Now, it is probable it will happen by the end of the decade.
BCA's Bottom Line: Unlike past technological revolutions, the impact of superintelligent AI could arrive quite quickly. It will usher in an era of unprecedented prosperity or turn us all into paper clips.
And that is where BCA's research takes a darker turn...
Open the Pod Bay Doors, Hal
Will we survive the transition to superintelligence? Unfortunately, the odds are not good. The main issue is centered on the so-called alignment problem – how to align our goals with the AI’s goals.
Every AI system needs to be given a goal to pursue, without which it would not know how to use its resources. In the case of ChatGPT, that goal is entered as a prompt by the user. With more elaborate AIs such as AutoGPT, the goals could be more open-ended.
The list of all conceivable goals that an AI can pursue is enormous, only a tiny subset of which most humans would ever want to see fulfilled. And even within that tiny subset, getting an AI to fulfill a goal in the way it was originally intended could prove to be exceedingly difficult.
The Curse of the Second Law
The laws of physics do not have a preferred direction of time. The reason we perceive the flow of time is because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy almost always increases in the direction we call the future.
A system with high entropy has more possible arrangements than a system with low entropy. If you see a photo of a broken egg and a photo of the same unbroken egg, you can tell which photo was taken first because there are many more ways an egg can be broken than unbroken.
One of the consequences of the Second Law is that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Such destruction can come inadvertently, as in the example of the paper clip maximizer, or it might come intentionally. Either way, it might be difficult to avoid annihilation.
AI Safety Will Be a Huge Industry
By one estimate, humanity has wiped out 60% of vertebrate animals since 1970. We never purposely set out to kill them. It was just a by-product of economic expansion across the planet. The risk is that contact with a more intelligent AI could also usher in our extinction.
On March 22, the Future of Life Institute published a letter signed by more than 1,000 luminaries, including Elon Musk and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, arguing for a six-month pause in AI research to allow for more time to develop better safety protocols.
So far, the AI industry has been extremely cavalier about safety issues. That will likely change, as concern over the risks posed by AI continues to accumulate.
So, in summary, AI will lead to 300 million in job losses according to Goldman... and then it will wipe out all of humanity.
Nearly 1,500 small businesses filed for Subchapter V bankruptcy this year through Sept. 28, nearly as many as in all of 2022, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.
Bankruptcy petitions are just one sign of financial stress. Small-business loan delinquencies and defaults have edged upward since June 2022 and are now above prepandemic averages, according to Equifax.
An index tracking small-business owners’ confidence ticked down slightly in September, driven by heightened concerns about the economy, according to a survey of more than 750 small businesses. Fifty-two percent of respondents believed that the country is approaching or in a recession, said the survey by Vistage Worldwide, a business-coaching and peer-advisory firm.
Robert Gonzales, a bankruptcy attorney in Nashville, said he’s now getting four times as many calls as he did a year ago from small businesses considering a bankruptcy filing.
“We are just at the front end of the impact of these dramatically higher interest rates,” Gonzales said. “There are going to be plenty of small businesses that are overleveraged.”
Five Reasons for Surge in Bankruptcies
Rising Interest Rates
Surging Wages
Tighter Bank Credit
Overleverage
Work-at-Home Curtailing Demand
Fed Rate Interest Rate Hike Expectations Are Still Higher for Even Longer
The Fed has hiked interest rates to 5.25% to 5.50%. It’s the highest in 22 years.
Yes, governor, this is very big deal. It will increase the cost of eating out everywhere.
The bill Newsom signed only applies to restaurants that have at least 60 locations nationwide — with an exception for restaurants that make and sell their own bread, like Panera Bread (what’s that exception all about?)
Nonetheless, the bill will force many small restaurants out of business or they will pony up too.
30 Percent Raise Coming Up!
If McDonalds pays $20, why take $15.50 elsewhere?
The $4.50 hike from $15.50 to $20 is a massive 30 percent jump.
Expect prices at all restaurant to rise. Then think ahead. This extra money is certain to increase demands for all goods and services, so guess what.
Other states will follow California.
Biden Newsome Tag Team
Biden’s energy policies have made the US less secure on oil, more dependent on China for materials needed to make batteries, fueled a surge in inflation, and ironically did not do a damn thing for the environment, arguably making matters worse.
Newsom is doing everything he can to make things even worse.
The tag team of Biden and Newsom is an inflationary sight to behold.
Bank Credit and Over-Leverage
In the wake of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, across the board small regional banks are curtailing credit.
The regional banks over-leveraged on interest rate bets. And businesses overleveraged too, getting caught up in work-from-home environments that curtailed demand for some goods and services.
The bankruptcies will fall hard on the regional banks.
Mining brings huge social and environmental change to communities: landscapes, livelihoods and the social fabric evolve alongside the industry. But what…
Mining brings huge social and environmental change to communities: landscapes, livelihoods and the social fabric evolve alongside the industry. But what happens when the mines close? What problems face communities that lose their main employer and the very core of their identity and social networks? A research fellow at the University of Göttingen provides recommendations for governments to successfully navigate mining communities through their transition toward non-mining economies. Based on past experiences with industrial transitions, she suggests that a three-step approach centred around stakeholder collaboration could be the most effective way forward. This approach combines early planning, local-based solutions, and targeted investments aimed at fostering economic and workforce transformation. This comment article was published in Nature Energy.
Credit: Kamila Svobodova
Mining brings huge social and environmental change to communities: landscapes, livelihoods and the social fabric evolve alongside the industry. But what happens when the mines close? What problems face communities that lose their main employer and the very core of their identity and social networks? A research fellow at the University of Göttingen provides recommendations for governments to successfully navigate mining communities through their transition toward non-mining economies. Based on past experiences with industrial transitions, she suggests that a three-step approach centred around stakeholder collaboration could be the most effective way forward. This approach combines early planning, local-based solutions, and targeted investments aimed at fostering economic and workforce transformation. This comment article was published in Nature Energy.
Dr Kamila Svobodova, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Research Fellow at the University of Göttingen, argues that, in practice, governments struggle to truly engage mining communities in both legislation and action. Even the more successful, often deemed exemplary, transitions failed to follow the principles of open and just participation or invest enough time in the process. Early discussions about how the future will look following closure help to build trust and relationships with communities. A combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches engages people at all levels. This ensures that the local context is understood and targeted specifically. It also establishes networks for collaboration during the transition. Effective coordination of investments toward mining communities, including funding to implement measures to support workers, seed new industries, support innovations, and enhance essential services in urban centres, proved to be successful in the past.
“To ensure energy security, it’s essential for governments to recognize the profound transformation that residents of mining communities experience when they shift away from mining,” Svobodova explains. “Neglecting these communities, their inherent strength of mining identity and unity, could lead to social and economic instability, potentially affecting the overall national energy infrastructure.”
Moving toward closure and consequently away from mining is not an easy or short journey. “It is essential that governments recognize that the transition takes time, and persistence is essential for success,” says Svoboda. “They should openly communicate their strategies, ensuring communities and other stakeholders are well-informed and engaged. Building trust and providing guidance helps residents navigate the uncertainties associated with transitions. By embracing the three-step approach that centers around stakeholder engagement, governments can prioritize equitable and just outcomes when navigating mining transitions as part of their energy security strategies.”
Original publication: Svobodova, K., “Navigating community transitions away from mining,” Comment article in Nature Energy 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-023-01359-9. Full text available here: https://rdcu.be/dnmU3
Contact:
Dr Kamila Svobodova
University of Göttingen
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development
Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
With the commencement of the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Joe Biden, three House committees will now pursue key linkages between the president and the massive influence peddling operation run by his son Hunter and brother James.
The impeachment inquiry should allow the House to finally acquire long-sought records of Hunter, James, and Joe Biden, as well as to pursue witnesses involved in their dealings.
I testified this week at the first hearing of the impeachment inquiry on the constitutional standards and practices in moving forward in the investigation. In my view, there is ample justification for an impeachment inquiry. If these allegations are established, they would clearly constitute impeachable offenses. I listed ten of those facts in my testimony that alone were sufficient to move forward with this inquiry.
I was criticized by both the left and the right for the testimony.
Steven Bannon and others were upset that I did not believe that the basis for impeachment had already been established in the first hearing of the inquiry.
Without prejudging that evidence, there are four obvious potential articles of impeachment that have been raised in recent disclosures and sworn statements:
bribery,
conspiracy,
obstruction, and
abuse of power.
Bribery is the second impeachable act listed under Article II. The allegation that the President received a bribe worth millions was documented on a FD-1023 form by a trusted FBI source who was paid a significant amount of money by the government. There remain many details that would have to be confirmed in order to turn such an allegation into an article of impeachment.
Yet three facts are now unassailable.
First, Biden has lied about key facts related to these foreign dealings, including false statements flagged by the Washington Post.
Second, the president was indeed the focus of a corrupt multimillion-dollar influence peddling scheme.
Third, Biden may have benefitted from this corruption through millions of dollars sent to his family as well as more direct benefit to Joe and Jill Biden.
What must be established is the President’s knowledge of or participation in this corrupt scheme. The House now has confirmed over 20 calls made to meetings and dinners with these foreign clients. It has confirmation of visits to the White House and dinners and events attended by Joe Biden. It also has confirmation of trips on Air Force II by Hunter to facilitate these deals, as well as payments where the President’s Delaware home address was used as late as 2019 for transfers from China.
The most serious allegations concern reported Washington calls or meetings by Hunter at the behest of these foreign figures. At least one of those calls concerned the removal or isolation of a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma, an energy company paying Hunter as a board member. A few days later, Biden withheld a billion dollars in an approved loan to Ukrainian in order to force the firing of the prosecutor.
The House will need to strengthen the nexus with the president in seeking firsthand accounts of these meetings, calls, and transfers.
However, there is one thing that the House does not have to do. While there are references to Joe Biden receiving money from Hunter and other benefits (including a proposed ten percent from one of these foreign deals), he has already been shown to have benefited from these transfers.
There is a false narrative being pushed by both politicians and pundits that there is no basis for an inquiry, let alone an impeachment, unless a direct payment or gift can be shown to Joe Biden. That would certainly strengthen the case politically, but it is not essential legally. Even in criminal cases subject to the highest standard, payments to family members can be treated as benefits to a principal actor. Direct benefits can further strengthen articles of impeachment, but they would not be a prerequisite for such an action.
For example, in Ryan v. United States, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of George Ryan, formerly Secretary of State and then governor of Illinois, partly on account of benefits paid to his family, including the hiring of a band at his daughter’s wedding and other “undisclosed financial benefits to him and his family and to his friends.” Criminal cases can indeed be built on a “stream of benefits” running to the politician in question, his family, or his friends.
That is also true of past impeachments. I served as lead counsel in the last judicial impeachment tried before the Senate. My client, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, had been impeached by the House for, among other things, benefits received by his children, including gifts related to a wedding.
One of the jurors in the trial was Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who voted to convict and remove Porteous. Menendez is now charged with accepting gifts of vastly greater value in the recent corruption indictment.
The similarities between the Menendez and Biden controversies are noteworthy, in everything from the types of gifts to the counsel representing the accused. The Menendez indictment includes conspiracy charges for honest services fraud, the use of office to serve personal rather the public interests. It also includes extortion under color of official right under 18 U.S.C. 1951. (The Hobbs Act allows for a charge of extortion without a threat of violence but rather the use of official authority.)
Courts have held that conspiracy charges do not require the defendant to be involved in all (or even most) aspects of the planning for a bribe or denial of honest services. Thus, a conspirator does not have to participate “in every overt act or know all the details to be charged as a member of the conspiracy.”
Menendez’s case shows that the Biden Administration is prosecuting individuals under the same type of public corruption that this impeachment inquiry is supposed to prove. The U.S. has long declared influence peddling to be a form of public corruption and signed international conventions to combat precisely this type of corruption around the world.
This impeachment inquiry is going forward. The House just issued subpoenas on Friday for the financial records of both Hunter and James Biden. The public could soon have answers to some of these questions. Madison called impeachment “indispensable…for defending the community” against such corruption. The inquiry itself is an assurance that, wherever this evidence may lead, the House can now follow.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
