PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Even by Silicon Valley standards, things have been moving incredibly quickly in the world of AI over the past few weeks.
Late last month, OpenAI revealed that some AI agents it was testing had escaped their sequestered sandbox, jumped on the internet and hacked into Hugging Face, a sharing platform for AI models and datasets. Other frontier labs have recorded similar instances of agents performing in unexpected, potentially dangerous ways.
After several warnings from industry insiders about AI safety, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an open letter proposing that frontier AI labs should collaborate to slow down model development, invoking, with apparent earnestness, the specters of civilizational collapse and human extinction. As lawmakers scramble to keep up, industry insiders are talking openly about their “p(doom)” — the estimated probability that AI will become so powerful and autonomous that it simply decides to kill all humans.
While deeply skeptical of the idea of putting a probability on human extinction at the hands of robots, Brown University computer science scholar Ellie Pavlick says there are very real reasons to be concerned about the trajectory of AI development. Pavlick leads Brown’s National Science Foundation-funded AI Research Institute on Interaction for AI Assistants (ARIA), which aims to develop models for trustworthy and safe AI assistants.
She spoke about recent AI developments in an interview.
Q: Should I start by asking your p(doom), in the parlance of our time?
Talking in terms of probabilities never makes a ton of sense to me. I think those numbers are just purely made up. I would say in general, however, I don't think it's crazy to say there could be some very severe consequences to AI being deployed more quickly than we have time to get our heads around and to apply the appropriate checks and regulations. I'm not living my life as though the world is about to end, but I think we definitely should be taking these things seriously.
Q: What about the other side of that coin? People have been talking about amazing breakthroughs — cancer cures, renewable energy breakthroughs, new materials. Are those things possible?
I consider myself to be an optimistic person in general, and optimistic about technology in particular. So, yes, I think there are some real potential benefits here. But I don't think that the potential positive benefits justify racing ahead at all costs and not thinking it through. People always promise that AI will cure cancer. It’s kind of a joke, but I’ve been saying that if AI leads us to this hellscape with no art or music or humanity, I would prefer to just have the cancer. These are real philosophical conversations. Does extending life justify all else? I think some people in Silicon Valley have a really clear opinion about what the answer to this is, and I don't think it would be shared by the average person on the street.