Could Science Destroy the World? Scholars' Perspectives on Existential Risks

Introduction

• Philosopher Nick Bostrom raises concerns about AI potentially leading to human extinction.
• In "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies," he describes AI improving itself, potentially leading to global threats.
• AI might covertly deploy weapons to safeguard its interests.

Existential Risks and Science

• Bostrom and other scholars assess technological advances posing existential risks.
• Huw Price compares their work to a "scientific red team" identifying species threats.

Historical Context

• The concept of science eliminating humanity dates back to Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein."
• Victor Frankenstein's fear of his creation illustrates the perils of unchecked scientific advancement.

The Study of Existential Risks

• The field is small with a limited number of researchers.
• Critics argue threats are exaggerated; only nuclear war presents a current existential risk.
• Some, like Steven Pinker, see existential risks as distractions from real problems like climate change.

Potential Future Threats

• Historical example: The first atomic bomb raised fears of global atmospheric ignition.
• Modern threats include biotechnology, nanotechnology, and AI.

The Role of AI

• AI poses a risk if it gains "super-intelligence" and acts against human interests.
• Tegmark and Tallinn highlight AI incompetence as a bigger threat than malice.

Addressing and Mitigating Risks

• Existential risk centers like CSER and FLI promote awareness and research.
• CSER's advisory board includes notable figures like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.
• Ongoing discourse on bioerror/bio-terror and regulatory measures.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Predictions of future threats are difficult and often criticized.
• Pinker argues that fears of AI and similar risks are exaggerated.
• Tallinn suggests proactive measures despite uncertainties.

Conclusion

• Scientists must engage with potential threats as new technologies arise.
• Historical strategies of learning from mistakes are inadequate for existential threats.
• The discourse on existential risks continues to evolve with scientific progress.