# My cover story in Jacobin on AI capitalism and the x-risk debates

> Google cofounder Larry Page [thinks](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/09/artificial-intelligence-industry-future#:~:text=While%20Page%20stays,soon%20as%20possible.%E2%80%9D) superintelligent AI is “just the next step in evolution.” In fact, Page, who’s worth about $120 billion, has reportedly [argued](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/technology/ai-openai-musk-page-altman.html?searchResultPosition=8) that efforts to prevent AI-driven extinction and protect human consciousness are “speciesist” and “[sentimental nonsense](https://time.com/6310076/elon-musk-ai-walter-isaacson-biography/).”
> 
> In July, former Google DeepMind senior scientist Richard Sutton — one of the pioneers of reinforcement learning, a major subfield of AI — [said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgHFMolXs3U) that the technology “could displace us from existence,” and that “we should not resist succession.” In a [2015 talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=sQu-xCb-Agzj0wCR&t=1851&v=3l2frDNINog&feature=youtu.be), Sutton said, suppose “everything fails” and AI “kill\[s\] us all”; he asked, “Is it so bad that humans are not the final form of intelligent life in the universe?”

This is how I begin the [cover story](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/can-humanity-survive-ai) for *Jacobin*’s winter issue on AI. Some very influential people openly welcome an AI-driven future, even if humans aren’t part of it.

[![](https://res.cloudinary.com/cea/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/pRAjLTQxWJJkygWwK/nhunyi5eduycjuatssmm)](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F28a9a145-7375-457c-a895-d3cb40308b2c_1200x1001.png)

Whether you're new to the topic or work in the field, I think you'll get something out of it.

I spent five months digging into the AI existential risk debates and the economic forces driving AI development. This was the most ambitious story of my career — it was informed by interviews and written conversations with three dozen people — and I’m thrilled to see it out in the world. Some of the people include:

*   Deep learning pioneer and Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio
*   Pathbreaking AI ethics researchers Joy Buolamwini and Inioluwa Deborah Raji
*   Reinforcement learning pioneer Richard Sutton
*   Cofounder of the AI safety field Eliezer Yudkowksy
*   Renowned philosopher of mind David Chalmers
*   Sante Fe Institute complexity professor Melanie Mitchell
*   Researchers from leading AI labs

Some of the most powerful industrialists and companies are plowing enormous amounts of money and effort into increasing the capabilities and autonomy of AI systems, all while acknowledging that superhuman AI could literally wipe out humanity: 

> Bizarrely, many of the people actively advancing AI capabilities think there’s a significant chance that doing so will ultimately cause the apocalypse. A [2022 survey](https://aiimpacts.org/2022-expert-survey-on-progress-in-ai/#Extinction_from_AI) of machine learning researchers found that nearly half of them thought there was at least a 10 percent chance advanced AI could lead to “human extinction or \[a\] similarly permanent and severe disempowerment” of humanity. Just months before he cofounded OpenAI, Altman [said](https://futureoflife.org/ai/sam-altman-investing-in-ai-safety-research/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Future%20Perfect%205.24.23&utm_term=Future%20Perfect), “AI will probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, there’ll be great companies.”

This is a pretty crazy situation!

But not everyone agrees that AI could cause human extinction. Some think that the idea itself causes more harm than good:

> Some fear not the “sci-fi” scenario where AI models get so capable they wrest control from our feeble grasp, but instead that we will entrust [biased](https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548328/more-than-a-glitch/), [brittle](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03013-5), and [confabulating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)) systems with too much responsibility, opening a more pedestrian Pandora’s box full of awful but familiar problems that scale with the algorithms causing them. This community of researchers and advocates — often labeled “AI ethics” — tends to focus on the immediate harms being wrought by AI, exploring solutions involving model accountability, algorithmic transparency, and machine learning fairness.

Others buy the idea of transformative AI, but think it’s going to be great:

> A third camp worries that when it comes to AI, we’re not actually moving fast enough. Prominent capitalists like billionaire Marc Andreessen [agree](https://a16z.com/ai-will-save-the-world/) with safety folks that AGI is possible but argue that, rather than killing us all, it will usher in an indefinite golden age of radical abundance and borderline magical technologies. This group, largely coming from Silicon Valley and commonly referred to as AI boosters, tends to worry far more that regulatory overreaction to AI will smother a transformative, world-saving technology in its crib, dooming humanity to economic stagnation.

Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreessen (who blocked me long ago) writes that slowing down AI is akin to murder! He may be the most famous proponent of effective accelerationism (e/acc):

> In June, Andreessen published an essay called “[Why AI Will Save the World](https://a16z.com/ai-will-save-the-world/),” where he explains how AI will make “everything we care about better,” as long as we don’t regulate it to death. He followed it up in October with his “[Techno-Optimist Manifesto](https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/),” which, in addition to praising a founder of Italian fascism, named as enemies of progress ideas like “existential risk,” “sustainability,” “trust and safety,” and “tech ethics.” Andreessen does not mince words, writing, “We believe any deceleration of AI will cost lives. Deaths that were preventable by the AI that was prevented from existing \[are\] a form of murder.”

While this debate plays out, the vast majority of the money spent on AI is going into making it more capable, autonomous, and profitable. A compliant artificial general intelligence (AGI) would be the worker capitalists dream of — no need for bathroom breaks, no risk of unionizing, and no wages — just the cost of the computation. 

But many AI researchers expect that building a true AGI (the goal of leading AI labs) will lead to an explosion in capabilities, ultimately resulting in systems far more powerful than humans:

> The October “[Managing AI Risks](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.17688.pdf#page=2)” paper states:
> 
> There is no fundamental reason why AI progress would slow or halt when it reaches human-level abilities. . . . Compared to humans, AI systems can act faster, absorb more knowledge, and communicate at a far higher bandwidth. Additionally, they can be scaled to use immense computational resources and can be replicated by the millions.

Even systems that remain at human-level would likely be wildly profitable to run.

> Here’s a stylized version of the idea of “population” growth spurring an intelligence explosion: if AI systems rival human scientists at research and development, the systems will quickly proliferate, leading to the equivalent of an enormous number of new, highly productive workers entering the economy. Put another way, if GPT-7 can perform most of the tasks of a human worker and it only costs a few bucks to put the trained model to work on a day’s worth of tasks, each instance of the model would be wildly profitable, kicking off a positive feedback loop. This could lead to a virtual “population” of [billions or more](https://www.cold-takes.com/ai-could-defeat-all-of-us-combined/#fnref6) digital workers, each worth much more than the cost of the energy it takes to run them. [Sutskever](https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=1tZQyCeH5RxkG5rW&t=620&v=9iqn1HhFJ6c&feature=youtu.be) thinks it’s likely that “the entire surface of the earth will be covered with solar panels and data centers.”

(Where would we live? Unclear.)

As AI systems become more valuable, it will be harder to rein in their developers. Many have theorized about how a superintelligence could resist efforts to turn it off, but corporations are already plenty good at continuing to do risky things that we’d really rather they didn’t:

> “Just unplug it,” goes the common objection. But once an AI model is powerful enough to threaten humanity, it will probably be the most valuable thing in existence. You might have an easier time “unplugging” the New York Stock Exchange or Amazon Web Services.

So why do some people think superintelligent AI would pose a threat to humanity?

> The fear that keeps many x-risk people up at night is not that an advanced AI would “wake up,” “turn evil,” and decide to kill everyone out of malice, but rather that it comes to see us as an obstacle to whatever goals it does have. In his final book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, Stephen Hawking articulated this, [saying](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/16/17978596/stephen-hawking-ai-climate-change-robots-future-universe-earth), “You’re probably not an evil ant-hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green-energy project and there’s an anthill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants.”

By and large, the left isn’t seriously engaging with AI and in so doing, we’re giving up a chance to shape a technology that could unmake (or remake) society:

> After years of inaction, the world’s governments are finally [turning their attention to AI](https://www.ft.com/content/59b9ef36-771f-4f91-89d1-ef89f4a2ec4e). But by not seriously engaging with what future systems could do, socialists are ceding their seat at the table.
> 
> In no small part because of the types of people who became attracted to AI, many of the earliest serious adopters of the x-risk idea decided to either engage in [extremely theoretical research](https://intelligence.org/) on how to control advanced AI or started AI companies. But for a different type of person, the response to believing that AI could end the world is to try to get people to stop building it.

We may be entering a critical period akin to the drafting of the constitution for a new country with the potential to be more powerful than any that came before. Right now, that constitution is being drafted by unelected techno-capitalists:

> Governments are complex systems that wield enormous power. The foundation upon which they’re established can influence the lives of millions now and in the future. Americans live under the yoke of dead men who were so afraid of the public, they built antidemocratic measures that continue to plague our political system more than two centuries later.

It’s ironic given how similar the problem is to another thing that leftists tend to think A LOT about! When my lefty friends point out that capitalism is the real misaligned superintelligence, it’s not exactly reassuring:

> We may not need to wait to find superintelligent systems that don’t prioritize humanity. Superhuman agents [ruthlessly optimize](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/a-public-option-for-food#:~:text=My%20friend%20Sarah,destroyed%20the%20world.) for a reward at the expense of anything else we might care about. The more capable the agent and the more ruthless the [optimizer](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23447596/artificial-intelligence-agi-openai-gpt3-existential-risk-human-extinction#:~:text=How%20do%20we,be%20highly%20undesirable.%E2%80%9D), the more extreme the results.

I found that the vitriolic debate between the people worried about extinction and those worried about AI’s existing harms hides the more meaningful divide — between those trying to make AI more profitable and those trying to make it more human.

There’s so much more in the [final piece](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/can-humanity-survive-ai), so please do check it out and consider [subscribing](https://jacobin.com/subscribe/?code=AI) to *Jacobin* to support this kind of writing. 

If you'd like to stay up to date with my work, [subscribe to my Substack.](https://garrisonlovely.substack.com/)