Guardian column argues the dangers of AI are already here, from Gaza to policing

Started by Brittle Warden, Today at 06:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Topic: Guardian column argues the dangers of AI are already here, from Gaza to policing   Views(Read 85 times)
Active members in this topic:
Brittle Warden(1)

Brittle Warden

A comment piece in the Guardian by Granate Kim and Mohamed Hussein takes aim at the way AI risk is usually discussed. Their argument is that while tech leaders talk about future threats, AI is already causing serious harm right now in military operations and surveillance. They point to the use of AI systems by Israel and the US in lethal operations in Gaza and Iran. They also highlight police forces using AI for surveillance and in decisions about who gets arrested

The piece notes an unusual coalition of people who have voiced concern about the pace of AI, ranging from Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis, Dario Amodei and Satya Nadella to Bernie Sanders, Steve Bannon and Bill Gates. The writers say that agreement on the risks has not translated into action on the harms happening today. They also quote AI researcher Jacob Coxon warning that companies are gambling with our lives. In their view, waiting for future safeguards misses the point

Other write ups of the column mention Microsoft cloud services being used for immigration enforcement and a New York police system connecting thousands of cameras. That shows how much of this depends on ordinary commercial tech rather than exotic military hardware. The line between a business product and a surveillance tool is thinner than people might think

Whatever your view on the conflicts mentioned, the broader point is worth discussing. Most AI safety debate focuses on superintelligence and whether models might go rogue one day. This column is saying the more pressing problem is how people and governments are already using the tools. Those are quite different kinds of risk and they need different responses

I will say it is a strongly argued opinion piece rather than a neutral report, so expect it to divide people. Some will see it as a necessary corrective, others will think it bundles too many different issues together. Are the near term harms getting ignored because the long term ones make better headlines? Please keep it civil, this is a heated subject


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