HackerPapers

arXiv:2206.13353cs.CY

Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?

Joseph Carlsmith

Abstract

This report examines what I see as the core argument for concern about existential risk from misaligned artificial intelligence. I proceed in two stages. First, I lay out a backdrop picture that informs such concern. On this picture, intelligent agency is an extremely powerful force, and creating agents much more intelligent than us is playing with fire -- especially given that if their objectives are problematic, such agents would plausibly have instrumental incentives to seek power over humans. Second, I formulate and evaluate a more specific six-premise argument that creating agents of this kind will lead to existential catastrophe by 2070. On this argument, by 2070: (1) it will become possible and financially feasible to build relevantly powerful and agentic AI systems; (2) there will be strong incentives to do so; (3) it will be much harder to build aligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems than to build misaligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems that are still superficially attractive to deploy; (4) some such misaligned systems will seek power over humans in high-impact ways; (5) this problem will scale to the full disempowerment of humanity; and (6) such disempowerment will constitute an existential catastrophe. I assign rough subjective credences to the premises in this argument, and I end up with an overall estimate of ~5% that an existential catastrophe of this kind will occur by 2070. (May 2022 update: since making this report public in April 2021, my estimate here has gone up, and is now at >10%.)

arXiv comments
57 pages, 1 figure. Edited to fix link to audio version, add links to short version and reviews, and fix a typo in section 2.1.2
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CYComputers and Society cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 3 threads, from Apr 2023 to Jan 2024. Found in 1 HN submission from Oct 2022 to Oct 2022. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments3 threads

    • > The first links are spiffy little metaphors, but apply just as much at "God could smite all of humanity, even if you don't understand how". They're not making any argument, just assumptions. In particular, they accidentally show how an AI can be superhumanly capable at certain…

      foo3a9c4View on HNParent context

    • > P1: If intelligent system A cannot give a detailed account of how it would be bested by a more intelligent system B, then A will not be bested by B. P2: Humans (so far) cannot give a detailed account of how a more intelligent AI system would best them. C: So, humans will not…

      simionesView on HNParent context

  1. GitHub Copilot emits GPL code 1 comment
    • It seems to me, from a copyright perspective, all commercial use of generative AI depends on whether the output is transformative fair use (vs derived work). While the courts will have its say, ultimately whether new rules are carved out or not is going to be again (as all…

      lhlView on HNParent context

    • The dangers of AGI I don't think are very related with consciousness or sentience (maybe the saddest outcome if it killed us all and weren't at all). I'm still catching up on my reading, but the existential risk of AGI as I understand it is chiefly that we don't know how to…

      lhlView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.