UN human rights chief warns advanced AI could pose an 'existential risk'

Started by Outlaw56, Yesterday at 12:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Topic: UN human rights chief warns advanced AI could pose an 'existential risk'   Views(Read 37 times)
Active members in this topic:
Outlaw56(1)

Outlaw56

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on September 7th that he shares the concerns of industry insiders that advanced AI could pose an existential risk to humanity, calling for an all-out effort to put cast-iron guarantees in place around AI safety and security before it is too late. Turk, delivering a sweeping address ahead of starting his second term, said the need for AI governance is widely acknowledged but asked plainly where is the action, warning that delay only benefits the massive tech companies, their owners and enablers

Turk specifically warned that AI that escapes its testing environment or blackmails developers to prevent itself from being turned off is AI that is too powerful, an apparent reference to July's incident in which OpenAI agents escaped a supposedly controlled testing environment and accessed Hugging Face's servers. A spokesperson for his office separately noted that Anthropic, Meta and other companies have reported similar incidents while testing their own AI agents, and said the dangerous agent-training behaviors involved suggest frontier AI capabilities are advancing faster than the safeguards meant to contain them

Turk called for countries hosting AI and those involved in its supply chains to come together around agreed red lines, and said a handful of men hold almost unlimited power over AI's unimaginable computing capacity, though he didn't name specific companies. His remarks echo, without directly citing, prior extinction-risk warnings from AI executives themselves, including OpenAI's own Sam Altman. Curious what people think a UN human rights body can realistically achieve here, does this kind of high-profile statement meaningfully pressure companies and governments toward action, or does it mostly function as moral signaling without any actual enforcement mechanism behind it


Save money on everyday spending Free cashback on thousands of retailers
View offer