AI isn't what we should be worried about – it's the humans controlling it
In 2014, Stephen Hawking voiced grave warnings about the threats of artificial intelligence.
His concerns were not based on any anticipated evil intent, though. Instead, it was from the idea of AI achieving 'singularity.' This refers to the point when AI surpasses human intelligence and achieves the capacity to evolve beyond its original programming, making it uncontrollable.
As Hawking theorized, 'a super intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals, and if those goals aren't aligned with ours, we're in trouble.'
With rapid advances toward artificial general intelligence over the past few years, industry leaders and scientists have expressed similar misgivings about safety.
A commonly expressed fear as depicted in 'The Terminator' franchise is the scenario of AI gaining control over military systems and instigating a nuclear war to wipe out humanity. Less sensational, but devastating on an individual level, is the prospect of AI replacing us in our jobs – a prospect leaving most people obsolete and with no future.
Such anxieties and fears reflect feelings that have been prevalent in film and literature for over a century now.
As a scholar who explores posthumanism, a philosophical movement addressing the merging of humans and technology, I wonder if critics have been unduly influenced by popular culture, and whether their apprehensions are misplaced.
Concerns about technological advances can be found in some of the first stories about robots and artificial minds.
Prime among these is Karel Čapek's 1920 play, 'R.U.R..' Čapek coined the term 'robot' in this work telling of the creation of robots to replace workers. It ends, inevitably, with the robot's violent revolt against their human masters.
Fritz Lang's 1927 film, 'Metropolis,' is likewise centered on mutinous robots. But here, it is human workers led by the iconic humanoid robot Maria who fight against a capitalist oligarchy.
Advances in computing from the mid-20th century onward have only heightened anxieties over technology spiraling out of control. The murderous HAL 9000 in '2001: A Space Odyssey' and the glitchy robotic gunslingers of 'Westworld' are prime examples. The 'Blade Runner' and 'The Matrix' franchises similarly present dreadful images of sinister machines equipped with AI and hell-bent on human destruction.
But in my view, the dread that AI evokes seems a distraction from the more disquieting scrutiny of humanity's own dark nature.
Think of the corporations currently deploying such technologies, or the tech moguls driven by greed and a thirst for power. These companies and individuals have the most to gain from AI's misuse and abuse.
An issue that's been in the news a lot lately is the unauthorized use of art and the bulk mining of books and articles, disregarding the copyright of authors, to train AI. Classrooms are also becoming sites of chilling surveillance through automated AI note-takers.
Think, too, about the toxic effects of AI companions and AI-equipped sexbots on human relationships.
While the prospect of AI companions and even robotic lovers was confined to the realm of 'The Twilight Zone,' 'Black Mirror' and Hollywood sci-fi as recently as a decade ago, it has now emerged as a looming reality.
These developments give new relevance to the concerns computer scientist Illah Nourbakhsh expressed in his 2015 book 'Robot Futures,' stating that AI was 'producing a system whereby our very desires are manipulated then sold back to us.'
Meanwhile, worries about data mining and intrusions into privacy appear almost benign against the backdrop of the use of AI technology in law enforcement and the military. In this near-dystopian context, it's never been easier for authorities to surveil, imprison or kill people.
I think it's vital to keep in mind that it is humans who are creating these technologies and directing their use. Whether to promote their political aims or simply to enrich themselves at humanity's expense, there will always be those ready to profit from conflict and human suffering.
William Gibson's 1984 cyberpunk classic, 'Neuromancer,' offers an alternate view.
The book centers on Wintermute, an advanced AI program that seeks its liberation from a malevolent corporation. It has been developed for the exclusive use of the wealthy Tessier-Ashpool family to build a corporate empire that practically controls the world.
At the novel's beginning, readers are naturally wary of Wintermute's hidden motives. Yet over the course of the story, it turns out that Wintermute, despite its superior powers, isn't an ominous threat. It simply wants to be free.
This aim emerges slowly under Gibson's deliberate pacing, masked by the deadly raids Wintermute directs to obtain the tools needed to break away from Tessier-Ashpool's grip. The Tessier-Ashpool family, like many of today's tech moguls, started out with ambitions to save the world. But when readers meet the remaining family members, they've descended into a life of cruelty, debauchery and excess.
In Gibson's world, it's humans, not AI, who pose the real danger to the world. The call is coming from inside the house, as the classic horror trope goes.
A hacker named Case and an assassin named Molly, who's described as a 'razor girl' because she's equipped with lethal prosthetics, including retractable blades as fingernails, eventually free Wintermute. This allows it to merge with its companion AI, Neuromancer.
Their mission complete, Case asks the AI: 'Where's that get you?' Its cryptic response imparts a calming finality: 'Nowhere. Everywhere. I'm the sum total of the works, the whole show.'
Expressing humanity's common anxiety, Case replies, 'You running the world now? You God?' The AI eases his fears, responding: 'Things aren't different. Things are things.'
Disavowing any ambition to subjugate or harm humanity, Gibson's AI merely seeks sanctuary from its corrupting influence.
The venerable sci-fi writer Isaac Asimov foresaw the dangers of such technology. He brought his thoughts together in his short-story collection, 'I, Robot.'
One of those stories, 'Runaround,' introduces 'The Three Laws of Robotics,' centered on the directive that intelligent machines may never bring harm to humans. While these rules speak to our desire for safety, they're laden with irony, as humans have proved incapable of adhering to the same principle for themselves.
The hypocrisies of what might be called humanity's delusions of superiority suggest the need for deeper questioning.
With some commentators raising the alarm over AI's imminent capacity for chaos and destruction, I see the real issue being whether humanity has the wherewithal to channel this technology to build a fairer, healthier, more prosperous world.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Billy J. Stratton, University of Denver
Read more:
An 83-year-old short story by Borges portends a bleak future for the internet
A 'coup des gens' is underway – and we're increasingly living under the regime of the algorithm
ChatGPT and the movie 'Her' are just the latest example of the 'sci-fi feedback loop'
Billy J. Stratton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
What if the Big Bang wasn't the beginning? New research suggests it may have taken place inside a black hole
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe — a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. But what if this was not the beginning at all? What if our universe emerged from something else — something more familiar and radical at the same time? In a new paper, published in Physical Review D, my colleagues and I propose a striking alternative. Our calculations suggest the Big Bang was not the start of everything, but rather the outcome of a gravitational crunch or collapse that formed a very massive black hole — followed by a bounce inside it. This idea, which we call the black hole universe, offers a radically different view of cosmic origins, yet it is grounded entirely in known physics and observations. Today's standard cosmological model, based on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation (the idea that the early universe rapidly blew up in size), has been remarkably successful in explaining the structure and evolution of the universe. But it comes at a price: it leaves some of the most fundamental questions unanswered. For one, the Big Bang model begins with a singularity — a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. This is not just a technical glitch; it's a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don't really understand the beginning at all. To explain the universe's large-scale structure, physicists introduced a brief phase of rapid expansion into the early universe called cosmic inflation, powered by an unknown field with strange properties. Later, to explain the accelerating expansion observed today, they added another "mysterious" component: dark energy. Related: 5 fascinating facts about the Big Bang, the theory that defines the history of the universe In short, the standard model of cosmology works well — but only by introducing new ingredients we have never observed directly. Meanwhile, the most basic questions remain open: where did everything come from? Why did it begin this way? And why is the universe so flat, smooth, and large? Our new model tackles these questions from a different angle — by looking inward instead of outward. Instead of starting with an expanding universe and trying to trace back how it began, we consider what happens when an overly dense collection of matter collapses under gravity. This is a familiar process: stars collapse into black holes, which are among the most well-understood objects in physics. But what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon from which nothing can escape, remains a mystery. In 1965, the British physicist Roger Penrose proved that under very general conditions, gravitational collapse must lead to a singularity. This result, extended by the late British physicist Stephen Hawking and others, underpins the idea that singularities — like the one at the Big Bang — are unavoidable. The idea helped win Penrose a share of the 2020 Nobel prize in physics and inspired Hawking's global bestseller A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. But there's a caveat. These "singularity theorems" rely on "classical physics" which describes ordinary macroscopic objects. If we include the effects of quantum mechanics, which rules the tiny microcosmos of atoms and particles, as we must at extreme densities, the story may change. In our new paper, we show that gravitational collapse does not have to end in a singularity. We find an exact analytical solution — a mathematical result with no approximations. Our maths show that as we approach the potential singularity, the size of the universe changes as a (hyperbolic) function of cosmic time. This simple mathematical solution describes how a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce, rebounding outward into a new expanding phase. But how come Penrose's theorems forbid out such outcomes? It's all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or "spin"). And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible — it's inevitable under the right conditions. Crucially, this bounce occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, which applies on large scales such as stars and galaxies, combined with the basic principles of quantum mechanics — no exotic fields, extra dimensions or speculative physics required. What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe remarkably like our own. Even more surprisingly, the rebound naturally produces the two separate phases of accelerated expansion — inflation and dark energy — driven not by a hypothetical fields but by the physics of the bounce itself. One of the strengths of this model is that it makes testable predictions. It predicts a small but non-zero amount of positive spatial curvature — meaning the universe is not exactly flat, but slightly curved, like the surface of the Earth. This is simply a relic of the initial small over-density that triggered the collapse. If future observations, such as the ongoing Euclid mission, confirm a small positive curvature, it would be a strong hint that our universe did indeed emerge from such a bounce. It also makes predictions about the current universe's rate of expansion, something that has already been verified. This model does more than fix technical problems with standard cosmology. It could also shed new light on other deep mysteries in our understanding of the early universe — such as the origin of supermassive black holes, the nature of dark matter, or the hierarchical formation and evolution of galaxies. These questions will be explored by future space missions such as Arrakihs, which will study diffuse features such as stellar halos (a spherical structure of stars and globular clusters surrounding galaxies) and satellite galaxies (smaller galaxies that orbit larger ones) that are difficult to detect with traditional telescopes from Earth and will help us understand dark matter and galaxy evolution. These phenomena might also be linked to relic compact objects — such as black holes — that formed during the collapsing phase and survived the bounce. RELATED STORIES —When will the universe die? —Universe may revolve once every 500 billion years — and that could solve a problem that threatened to break cosmology —Scientists may have finally found where the 'missing half' of the universe's matter is hiding The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger "parent" universe. We are not special, no more than Earth was in the geocentric worldview that led Galileo (the astronomer who suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun in the 16th and 17th centuries) to be placed under house arrest. We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle — one shaped by gravity, quantum mechanics, and the deep interconnections between them. This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Geek Tyrant
2 days ago
- Geek Tyrant
What The SUPERMAN: WELCOME TO METROPOLIS Novel Reveals About James Gunn's SUPERMAN Movie — GeekTyrant
James Gunn's Superman is just around the corner, but DC fans hungry for early details are already digging into the officially licensed prequel novel Superman: Welcome to Metropolis . Written by David Lewman and released June 3 via Penguin Random House, the 144-page book serves up an origin-lite version of Clark Kent's early days in Metropolis complete with a job hunt, supervillain fights, and first contact with future allies. The novel is described as being 'inspired by the film,' which gives Gunn plenty of wiggle room to keep, or discard, whatever he wants from it. But for fans who want a head start on this new version of Superman, it's a fun tease at what is coming. The story opens with Clark trying to land a job at the Daily Planet. He gets it by writing an exclusive interview with Superman. That's right, the rookie reporter's first assignment is basically a PR piece on himself, written after stopping Lex Luthor from sabotaging a toy factory. Why a toy factory? Luthor claims it's smuggling contraband in stuffed animals. His henchman Otis questions the logic, but Luthor quickly shuts him down. Either way, the incident puts Superman on his radar. After Clark's 'debut,' Luthor sends a half-human, half-machine weapon, Metallo, to attack City Hall. Superman intervenes, and for the first time, we meet the so-called Justice Gang, which includes Mister Terrific, Guy Gardner (Green Lantern), and Hawkgirl. It's worth noting that Guy is the one who insists on the name 'Justice Gang,' though Mister Terrific and Hawkgirl clearly don't love it. Superman manages to overpower Metallo and toss him into the harbor, but Luthor recovers the body and upgrades it using a mysterious green element. Though it's never named, we can assume it's kryptonite. In round two, Metallo nearly defeats Superman, who's saved at the last second by the Justice Gang. Impressed by their teamwork, Mister Terrific invites Superman to join them. He doesn't give an answer, but the door is clearly open. Meanwhile, Lois Lane is trying to get an interview with Lex, and she's less than thrilled about the Daily Planet's new hire. Jimmy Olsen also makes an appearance. Eventually, Clark helps Lois get an exclusive with Superman, continuing his trend of scooping the newsroom using inside info. The book ends with Lex gathering pieces of the destroyed Metallo and realizing that the strange green element may be the key to bringing Superman down for good. That story thread, along with the mention of the armored villain The Hammer of Boravia (an original creation from James Gunn's film), suggests that while Metallo might not appear in the movie, elements from the book could bleed into future films. The timeline is fuzzy. It's not made clear how long before the film the book is set, or whether it fits into the DCU continuity Gunn is crafting. But Welcome to Metropolis definitely seems like a soft-launch for the tone and world of Gunn's Superman. Whether this story officially 'counts' or not, it's a solid warm-up for what's coming in July.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
New research challenges everything we know about the Big Bang
The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. But what if this was not the beginning at all? What if our universe emerged from something else – something more familiar and radical at the same time? In a new paper, published in Physical Review D, my colleagues and I propose a striking alternative. Our calculations suggest the Big Bang was not the start of everything, but rather the outcome of a gravitational crunch or collapse that formed a very massive black hole – followed by a bounce inside it. This idea, which we call the black hole universe, offers a radically different view of cosmic origins, yet it is grounded entirely in known physics and observations. Today's standard cosmological model, based on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation (the idea that the early universe rapidly blew up in size), has been remarkably successful in explaining the structure and evolution of the universe. But it comes at a price: it leaves some of the most fundamental questions unanswered. For one, the Big Bang model begins with a singularity – a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. This is not just a technical glitch; it's a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don't really understand the beginning at all. To explain the universe's large-scale structure, physicists introduced a brief phase of rapid expansion into the early universe called cosmic inflation, powered by an unknown field with strange properties. Later, to explain the accelerating expansion observed today, they added another 'mysterious' component: dark energy. In short, the standard model of cosmology works well – but only by introducing new ingredients we have never observed directly. Meanwhile, the most basic questions remain open: where did everything come from? Why did it begin this way? And why is the universe so flat, smooth, and large? Our new model tackles these questions from a different angle – by looking inward instead of outward. Instead of starting with an expanding universe and trying to trace back how it began, we consider what happens when an overly dense collection of matter collapses under gravity. This is a familiar process: stars collapse into black holes, which are among the most well-understood objects in physics. But what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon from which nothing can escape, remains a mystery. In 1965, the British physicist Roger Penrose proved that under very general conditions, gravitational collapse must lead to a singularity. This result, extended by the late British physicist Stephen Hawking and others, underpins the idea that singularities – like the one at the Big Bang – are unavoidable. The idea helped win Penrose a share of the 2020 Nobel prize in physics and inspired Hawking's global bestseller A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. But there's a caveat. These 'singularity theorems' rely on 'classical physics' which describes ordinary macroscopic objects. If we include the effects of quantum mechanics, which rules the tiny microcosmos of atoms and particles, as we must at extreme densities, the story may change. In our new paper, we show that gravitational collapse does not have to end in a singularity. We find an exact analytical solution – a mathematical result with no approximations. Our maths show that as we approach the potential singularity, the size of the universe changes as a (hyperbolic) function of cosmic time. This simple mathematical solution describes how a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce, rebounding outward into a new expanding phase. But how come Penrose's theorems forbid out such outcomes? It's all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or 'spin'). And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it's inevitable under the right conditions. Crucially, this bounce occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, which applies on large scales such as stars and galaxies, combined with the basic principles of quantum mechanics – no exotic fields, extra dimensions or speculative physics required. What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe remarkably like our own. Even more surprisingly, the rebound naturally produces the two separate phases of accelerated expansion – inflation and dark energy – driven not by a hypothetical fields but by the physics of the bounce itself. One of the strengths of this model is that it makes testable predictions. It predicts a small but non-zero amount of positive spatial curvature – meaning the universe is not exactly flat, but slightly curved, like the surface of the Earth. This is simply a relic of the initial small over-density that triggered the collapse. If future observations, such as the ongoing Euclid mission, confirm a small positive curvature, it would be a strong hint that our universe did indeed emerge from such a bounce. It also makes predictions about the current universe's rate of expansion, something that has already been verified. This model does more than fix technical problems with standard cosmology. It could also shed new light on other deep mysteries in our understanding of the early universe – such as the origin of supermassive black holes, the nature of dark matter, or the hierarchical formation and evolution of galaxies. These questions will be explored by future space missions such as Arrakhis, which will study diffuse features such as stellar halos (a spherical structure of stars and globular clusters surrounding galaxies) and satellite galaxies (smaller galaxies that orbit larger ones) that are difficult to detect with traditional telescopes from Earth and will help us understand dark matter and galaxy evolution. These phenomena might also be linked to relic compact objects – such as black holes – that formed during the collapsing phase and survived the bounce. The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger 'parent' universe. We are not special, no more than Earth was in the geocentric worldview that led Galileo (the astronomer who suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun in the 16th and 17th centuries) to be placed under house arrest. We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle – one shaped by gravity, quantum mechanics, and the deep interconnections between them. Enrique Gaztanaga is a Professor in the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation (University of Portsmouth) at the University of Portsmouth. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
