news News

Threats from the misuse of artificial intelligence
by British Medical Journal, agencies
7:57am 10th May, 2023
May 2023
Threats from the misuse of artificial intelligence, report from the British Medical Journal
In this section, we describe three sets of threats associated with the misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI), whether it be deliberate, negligent, accidental or because of a failure to anticipate and prepare to adapt to the transformational impacts of AI on society.
The first set of threats comes from the ability of AI to rapidly clean, organise and analyse massive data sets consisting of personal data, including images collected by the increasingly ubiquitous presence of cameras, and to develop highly personalised and targeted marketing and information campaigns as well as greatly expanded systems of surveillance.
This ability of AI can be put to good use, for example, improving our access to information or countering acts of terrorism. But it can also be misused with grave consequences.
The use of this power to generate commercial revenue for social media platforms, for example, has contributed to the rise in polarisation and extremist views observed in many parts of the world. It has also been harnessed by other commercial actors to create a vast and powerful personalised marketing infrastructure capable of manipulating consumer behaviour.
Experimental evidence has shown how AI used at scale on social media platforms provides a potent tool for political candidates to manipulate their way into power and it has indeed been used to manipulate political opinion and voter behaviour Cases of AI-driven subversion of elections include the 2013 and 2017 Kenyan elections, the 2016 US presidential election and the 2017 French presidential election.
When combined with the rapidly improving ability to distort or misrepresent reality with deepfakes, AI-driven information systems may further undermine democracy by causing a general breakdown in trust or by driving social division and conflict, with ensuing public health impacts. AI-driven surveillance may also be used by governments and other powerful actors to control and oppress people more directly.
This is perhaps best illustrated by China’s Social Credit System, which combines facial recognition software and analysis of ‘big data’ repositories of people’s financial transactions, movements, police records and social relationships to produce assessments of individual behaviour and trustworthiness, which results in the automatic sanction of individuals deemed to have behaved poorly.
Sanctions include fines, denying people access to services such as banking and insurance services, or preventing them from being able to travel or send their children to fee-paying schools. This type of AI application may also exacerbate social and health inequalities and lock people into their existing socioeconomic strata.
But China is not alone in the development of AI surveillance. At least 75 countries, ranging from liberal democracies to military regimes, have been expanding such systems. Although democracy and rights to privacy and liberty may be eroded or denied without AI, the power of AI makes it easier for authoritarian or totalitarian regimes to be either established or solidified and also for such regimes to be able to target particular individuals or groups in society for persecution and oppression.
The second set of threats concerns the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). There are many applications of AI in military and defence systems, some of which may be used to promote security and peace. But the risks and threats associated with LAWS outweigh any putative benefits.
Weapons are autonomous in so far as they can locate, select and ‘engage’ human targets without human supervision. This dehumanisation of lethal force is said to constitute the third revolution in warfare, following the first and second revolutions of gunpowder and nuclear arms.
Lethal autonomous weapons come in different sizes and forms. But crucially, they include weapons and explosives, that may be attached to small, mobile and agile devices (eg, quadcopter drones) with the intelligence and ability to self-pilot and capable of perceiving and navigating their environment. Moreover, such weapons could be cheaply mass-produced and relatively easily set up to kill at an industrial scale.
For example, it is possible for a million tiny drones equipped with explosives, visual recognition capacity and autonomous navigational ability to be contained within a regular shipping container and programmed to kill en masse without human supervision.
As with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, LAWS present humanity with a new weapon of mass destruction, one that is relatively cheap and that also has the potential to be selective about who or what is targeted.
This has deep implications for the future conduct of armed conflict as well as for international, national and personal security more generally. Debates have been taking place in various forums on how to prevent the proliferation of LAWS, and about whether such systems can ever be kept safe from cyber-infiltration or from accidental or deliberate misuse.
The third set of threats arises from the loss of jobs that will accompany the widespread deployment of AI technology. Projections of the speed and scale of job losses due to AI-driven automation range from tens to hundreds of millions over the coming decade.
Much will depend on the speed of development of AI, robotics and other relevant technologies, as well as policy decisions made by governments and society. However, in a survey of most-cited authors on AI in 2012/2013, participants predicted the full automation of human labour shortly after the end of this century.
It is already anticipated that in this decade, AI-driven automation will disproportionately impact low/middle-income countries by replacing lower-skilled jobs, and then continue up the skill-ladder, replacing larger and larger segments of the global workforce, including in high-income countries.
While there would be many benefits from ending work that is repetitive, dangerous and unpleasant, we already know that unemployment is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes and behaviour, including harmful consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs, being overweight, and having lower self-rated quality of life and health and higher levels of depression and risk of suicide.
However, an optimistic vision of a future where human workers are largely replaced by AI-enhanced automation would include a world in which improved productivity would lift everyone out of poverty and end the need for toil and labour.
However, the amount of exploitation our planet can sustain for economic production is limited, and there is no guarantee that any of the added productivity from AI would be distributed fairly across society.
Thus far, increasing automation has tended to shift income and wealth from labour to the owners of capital, and appears to contribute to the increasing degree of maldistribution of wealth across the globe.
Furthermore, we do not know how society will respond psychologically and emotionally to a world where work is unavailable or unnecessary, nor are we thinking much about the policies and strategies that would be needed to break the association between unemployment and ill health.
The threat of self-improving artificial general intelligence
Self-improving general-purpose AI, or AGI, is a theoretical machine that can learn and perform the full range of tasks that humans can. By being able to learn and recursively improve its own code, it could improve its capacity to improve itself and could theoretically learn to bypass any constraints in its code and start developing its own purposes, or alternatively it could be equipped with this capacity from the beginning by humans.
The vision of a conscious, intelligent and purposeful machine able to perform the full range of tasks that humans can has been the subject of academic and science fiction writing for decades. But regardless of whether conscious or not, or purposeful or not, a self-improving or self-learning general purpose machine with superior intelligence and performance across multiple dimensions would have serious impacts on humans.
We are now seeking to create machines that are vastly more intelligent and powerful than ourselves. The potential for such machines to apply this intelligence and power—whether deliberately or not—in ways that could harm or subjugate humans—is real and has to be considered.
If realised, the connection of AGI to the internet and the real world, including via vehicles, robots, weapons and all the digital systems that increasingly run our societies, could well represent the ‘biggest event in human history’.
Although the effects and outcome of AGI cannot be known with any certainty, multiple scenarios may be envisioned. These include scenarios where AGI, despite its superior intelligence and power, remains under human control and is used to benefit humanity. Alternatively, we might see AGI operating independently of humans and coexisting with humans in a benign way.
Logically however, there are scenarios where AGI could present a threat to humans, and possibly an existential threat, by intentionally or unintentionally causing harm directly or indirectly, by attacking or subjugating humans or by disrupting the systems or using up resources we depend on.
A survey of AI society members predicted a 50% likelihood of AGI being developed between 2040 and 2065, with 18% of participants believing that the development of AGI would be existentially catastrophic. Presently, dozens of institutions are conducting research and development into AGI.
Assessing risk and preventing harm
Many of the threats described above arise from the deliberate, accidental or careless misuse of AI by humans. Even the risk and threat posed by a form of AGI that exists and operates independently of human control is currently still in the hands of humans. However, there are differing opinions about the degree of risk posed by AI and about the relative trade-offs between risk and potential reward, and harms and benefits.
Nonetheless, with exponential growth in AI research and development, the window of opportunity to avoid serious and potentially existential harms is closing. The future outcomes of the development of AI and AGI will depend on policy decisions taken now and on the effectiveness of regulatory institutions that we design to minimise risk and harm and maximise benefit.
Crucially, as with other technologies, preventing or minimising the threats posed by AI will require international agreement and cooperation, and the avoidance of a mutually destructive AI ‘arms race’. It will also require decision making that is free of conflicts of interest and protected from the lobbying of powerful actors with a vested interest.
Worryingly, large private corporations with vested financial interests and little in the way of democratic and public oversight are leading in the field of AGI research.
Different parts of the UN system are now engaged in a desperate effort to ensure that our international social, political and legal institutions catch up with the rapid technological advancements being made with AI.
In 2020, for example, the UN established a High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation to foster global dialogue and cooperative approaches for a safe and inclusive digital future.
In September 2021, the head of the UN Office of the Commissioner of Human Rights called on all states to place a moratorium on the sale and use of AI systems until adequate safeguards are put in place to avoid the ‘negative, even catastrophic’ risks posed by them.
And in November 2021, the 193 member states of UNESCO adopted an agreement to guide the construction of the necessary legal infrastructure to ensure the ethical development of AI. However, the UN still lacks a legally binding instrument to regulate AI and ensure accountability at the global level.
At the regional level, the European Union has an Artificial Intelligence Act which classifies AI systems into three categories: unacceptable-risk, high-risk and limited and minimal-risk. This Act could serve as a stepping stone towards a global treaty although it still falls short of the requirements needed to protect several fundamental human rights and to prevent AI from being used in ways that would aggravate existing inequities and discrimination.
There have also been efforts focused on LAWS, with an increasing number of voices calling for stricter regulation or outright prohibition, just as we have done with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. State parties to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons have been discussing lethal autonomous weapon systems since 2014, but progress has been slow.
What can and should the medical and public health community do? Perhaps the most important thing is to simply raise the alarm about the risks and threats posed by AI, and to make the argument that speed and seriousness are essential if we are to avoid the various harmful and potentially catastrophic consequences of AI-enhanced technologies being developed and used without adequate safeguards and regulation.
It is also important that we not only target our concerns at AI, but also at the actors who are driving the development of AI too quickly or too recklessly, and at those who seek only to deploy AI for self-interest or malign purposes.
If AI is to ever fulfil its promise to benefit humanity and society, we must protect democracy, strengthen our public-interest institutions, and dilute power so that there are effective checks and balances.
This includes ensuring transparency and accountability of the parts of the military–corporate industrial complex driving AI developments and the social media companies that are enabling AI-driven, targeted misinformation to undermine our democratic institutions and rights to privacy.
Given that the world of work and employment will drastically change over the coming decades, we should deploy our public health expertise in evidence-based advocacy for a fundamental and radical rethink of social and economic policy to enable future generations to thrive in a world in which human labour is no longer a central or necessary component to the production of goods and services..
Mar. 2023
Pause Giant AI Experiments. Future of Life Institute
AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research and acknowledged by top AI labs. As stated in the widely-endorsed Asilomar AI Principles, Advanced AI could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.
Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks, and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization? Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders.
Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable. This confidence must be well justified and increase with the magnitude of a system's potential effects.
OpenAI's recent statement regarding artificial general intelligence, states that "At some point, it may be important to get independent review before starting to train future systems, and for the most advanced efforts to agree to limit the rate of growth of compute used for creating new models." We agree. That point is now.
Therefore, we call on all AI labs to immediately pause the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This pause should be public and verifiable, and include all key actors. If such a pause cannot be enacted quickly, governments should step in and institute a moratorium.
AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts. These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.
This does not mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities.
AI research and development should be refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal. In parallel, AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems.
These should at a minimum include: new and capable regulatory authorities dedicated to AI; oversight and tracking of highly capable AI systems and large pools of computational capability; provenance and watermarking systems to help distinguish real from synthetic and to track model leaks; a robust auditing and certification ecosystem; liability for AI-caused harm; robust public funding for technical AI safety research; and well-resourced institutions for coping with the dramatic economic and political disruptions (especially to democracy) that AI will cause. Society has hit pause on other technologies with potentially catastrophic effects on society. We must do so now.

Visit the related web page
Next (more recent) news item
Next (older) news item