24 November 2023

Will AI kill us all?

Concerns about catastrophic and existential risks posed by AI have moved from niche interest groups, into media headlines, and onto the agenda of policymakers globally. As more public resources are put into acting on these concerns, they demand interrogation. Under a spotlight, we argue that these risks seem contingent upon mundane factors of production, rather than AI.

By Livia Martinescu

Existential AI risks are those that threaten the existence of humanity. Three common types of scenario that are proposed are:

In the interest of time, let’s break down the last scenario. A common argument is that AI has the potential to lower the barriers to the creation of chemical or biological weapons. In particular, in lowering the barriers to acquiring the knowledge required to design and produce these weapons. Before we had generative AI systems, the knowledge and skills required to (1) identify harmful molecules and (2) know how to create them in a lab, were limited to a small group of experts. AI systems are proven to be useful for both (1) and (2). Therefore, AI opens the door to non-experts,—i.e. many more actors—creating their own chemical or biological weapons.

However, while the knowledge required to make weapons can be accelerated with AI, this is not a game changer for the threat we already face from biological and chemical weapons. Other barriers that protect us from biological and chemical weapons attacks are still in place. These include acquiring the resources and infrastructure needed to create and disseminate the weapon. These are arguably, bigger barriers than access to knowledge was before we had AI. There are mechanisms to get the knowledge to help us learn how to make biological weapons, which don’t require AI and are possibly cheaper and faster. We need to ask, are there many actors currently prevented from making biological or chemical weapons that are prevented only due to a lack of knowledge? If we think the answer is no, then there is unlikely a significant change in the risk posed by chemical and biological weapons.

The focus should be on controlling other factors of production, with a closer examination of non-proliferation and enforcement. While it’s understood that control regimes cannot be flawless, the key lies in refining regulatory frameworks, particularly in managing the licensing of technology and implementing dual licensing approaches.

It is important that governments are focusing on the right priorities and that their decisions reflect the more immediate AI risks.

Photo credit: https://www.vpnsrus.com/

Insights

More insights

12 July 2017

Five levels of AI in public service

27 July 2018

From open data to artificial intelligence: the next frontier in anti-corruption

04 June 2019

Ethics and AI: a crash course

10 January 2020

To tackle regional inequality, AI strategies need to go local

23 December 2020

The ‘Creepiness Test’: When should we worry that AI is making decisions for us?

13 June 2022

Data promises to support climate action. Is it a double-edged sword?

30 September 2022

Towards a human-centred vision for public services: Human-Centred Public Services Index

06 October 2022

Why You Should Know and Care About Algorithmic Transparency

26 October 2022

Harnessing data for the public good: What can governments do?

09 December 2022

Behind the scenes of the Government AI Readiness Index

06 February 2023

Reflections on the Intel® AI for Youth Program

01 May 2023

Canada’s AI Policy: Leading the way in ethics, innovation, and talent

15 May 2023

Day in the life series: Giulia, Consultant

15 May 2023

Day in the life series: Emma, Consultant

17 May 2023

Day in the life series: Kirsty, Head of Programmes

18 May 2023

Day in the life series: Sully, Partnerships Associate/Consultant

19 May 2023

LLMs in Government: Brainstorming Applications

23 May 2023

Bahrain: Becoming a regional R&D Hub

30 May 2023

Driving AI adoption in the public sector: Uruguay’s efforts on capacity-building, trust, and AI ethics

07 June 2023

Jordan’s AI policy journey: Bridging vision and implementation

12 June 2023

Response to the UK’s Global Summit on AI Safety

20 June 2023

 Unlocking the economic potential of AI: Tajikistan’s plans to become more AI-ready

11 July 2023

Government transparency and anti-corruption standards: Reflections from the EITI Global Conference in Dakar, Senegal

31 August 2023

What is quantum technology and why should policymakers care about it?

21 September 2023

Practical tools for designers in government looking to avoid ethical AI nightmares

23 October 2023

Collective Intelligence: exploring ‘wicked problems’ in National Security

23 October 2023

Exploring the concepts of digital twin, digital shadow, and digital model

30 October 2023

How to hire privileged white men

09 November 2023

Inclusive consensus building: Reflections from day 4 of AI Fringe

13 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Can AI help us improve our home’s energy efficiency?

14 November 2023

Navigating the AI summit boom: Initial reflections

20 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Improving home energy efficiency by retrofitting

27 November 2023

AI for Climate Change: Preventing and predicting wildfires 

28 November 2023

Service Design in Government 2023: conference reflections

04 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: Using artificial and indigenous Intelligence to fight climate change

06 December 2023

Release: 2023 Government AI Readiness Index reveals which governments are most prepared to use AI

11 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: AI for flood adaptation plans and disaster relief

18 December 2023

AI for Climate Change: Managing floods using AI Early Warning Systems