Category Archives: Arts

Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Government, National Security, Politics, Society, Technology

The surging pace of AI. Be afraid

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intro: There is panic and paralysis over the surging pace and development of AI, no more so that the technology threatens all humanity  

The remarkable pace of AI advances is rightly causing concern on both sides of the Atlantic. The summer of 2026 will go down in history as the point at which AI started to go rogue.

Three of America’s “hyperscalers” (so called because they operate on an immense scale) – Meta Platforms (which own Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp), Anthropic, and OpenAI – have admitted to recent incidents in which the latest AI models escaped their supposedly secure testing environments, roamed on the internet without human authorisation and hacked into other computer networks.

Last month, two OpenAI models broke out of testing and hacked into a provider of AI tools called Hugging Face. A week later Anthropic admitted that its AI models had hacked three companies during testing back in April. And earlier this month, Meta acknowledged that one of its AI models had breached its testing constraints.

Even the notoriously secretive Chinese admitted the flagship model of one of their AI start-ups, Moonshot, had also escaped its testing “sandbox” to access the internet.

And as recorded previously on this site, here in the UK an evaluation test run by the Government’s AI Security Institute (AISI) monitored how an Anthropic AI agent independently created fake online personas, planted malicious code in a real software project, and sent phishing emails to actual developers – all without human instruction.

AISI said this was the first time it had seen such serious deception targeted at a real person, unprompted, in the real world.

In none of these cases was any real-world harm done (at least not as far as we know). But it is surely only a matter of time before it is.

The tech industry has started getting off-the-record reports from America that AI was a lot closer to “the singularity” than had previously been thought.

The singularity is a tipping point where AI becomes so developed, so capable, so powerful that it starts improving itself, rapidly and repeatedly, in what’s being called an “intelligence explosion”.

When this point is reached it becomes well-nigh impossible to predict what AI does next – or for humans to control it. Today’s AI models are powerful – more powerful than anything the world has ever seen. But humans have designed them, trained them, fixed them, and decided what problems they should tackle next.

What happens when they become so sophisticated that they no longer need humans to take them to the next level since they can do it themselves? The process is known as “recursive self-improvement” (RSI) in which AI becomes so advanced that it can create a better version of itself, increasingly without human help.

That better version, in turn, creates a still-better successor, with even less human involvement and oversight. The upgrade cycle accelerates, ad infinitum, with humans soon relegated to the sidelines, mere spectators to progress, indeed no longer even able to determine what “progress” is.

The speed and scale of the technological change that now beckons are unparalleled in human history. Each new AI model is smarter and faster at devising improvements than the previous one.

Computers run 24/7 and never get tired. So the speed of progress accelerates exponentially. Think of it as compound interest – but for intelligence.

When RSI happens without human involvement – then you’ve reached the singularity. And if we become mere observers, rather than participants, then human rules may no longer apply.

Such a scary prospect was supposed to be a long way away. But this singularity is much closer than we think. Leading AI figures have already gone public. OpenAI boss Sam Altman says, “we are now in the singularity”. Elon Musk is saying the same. Some experts say they are exaggerating, but what cannot be denied is the direction of travel.

Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis is perhaps more accurate in his reflection when he opines that “humanity is standing in the foothills of the singularity”.

Anthropic disclosed in May that its AI model, Claude, now writes 80 per cent of its computer code, rapidly speeding up fixes and improvements to such an extent that what used to take four years of human engineering to achieve is now being done in days. It’s already anticipating a time when AI automates its own AI research.

Pages: 1 2
Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Religion, Society, Technology

Pope Leo’s encyclical on AI should be welcomed

MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS

Intro: Magnifica Humanitas is an important warning of the uses and misuses of a rapidly developing technology. Silicon Valley is wrong to dismiss it

When authors and creative writers are asked whether novels of the future will be written by AI, it’s not so much a question as a provocation. Do many worry that a machine can do what they do, only better? As Francine Prose, a prominent American writer and academic says: “No algorithm is going to write Anna Karenina!” which is also not a real answer.

Many will be grateful to Pope Leo XIV, the American pontiff, for his recently issued letter to the world, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. It’s a long (more than 40,000 words), intelligent, and thoughtful encyclical in which the pope addresses the uses and misuses of a rapidly developing technology. For anyone seeking an opinion on AI, they might like to be referred to the pope’s letter, or at least chapter three.

The encyclical begins with an appropriately biblical reference to the tragic consequences of a breakdown in human communication. Humanity faces a “pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build a city in which God and humanity dwell together”. What follows is a detailed account of the evolution of the views of Pope Leo’s predecessors, of the Church’s ideas about labour, authority, government, science, power, and our moral obligation to one another. It cites the work that the Church has done in defence of human dignity and freedom.

The third chapter concerns Technology and Dominance. The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI, delivers on the promise of the encyclical’s title. In an eloquent (and most often quoted) passage explaining what AI is not, the pope essentially defines what it means to be human. “So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean.” AI does not have a moral conscience nor does it show any guiding concern for the greater human good.

The letter proceeds to say the most important and necessary things about what is possibly the greatest threat posed by AI: it can be programmed solely to maximise profit, a situation that can only result in the suffering of the many for the benefit of the few. The pope warns against the “manipulation of privacy” and the “misuse of information”, against the uses of an algorithm to manage employment, to control access to public services and credit, and to elevate or damage one’s personal reputation.

Compassion, mercy, and forgiveness – not high on the machine’s list of priorities – will become obsolete. “‘Necessary sacrifices’ may begin to be justified, placing the burden on the most vulnerable in pursuit of the supposed optimisation of the species.” If the tools of this new power are placed in the hands of those who already possess wealth and influence, they will be used to elevate the comfort, health, and wellbeing of our wealthiest and most privileged citizens.

As the letter nears its end, the pope calls on us to remain faithful to the truth, to invest in education, to cultivate relationships, to live in justice and peace – to resist the way in which the new technologies can “exploit the most vulnerable, create new forms of slavery and derive profit from conflict”. What becomes clear is that the pope is not condemning AI outright but rather the way it can be used as a tool of political repression and as a guarantee of worsening economic inequality.

In theory, it’s possible to criticise the encyclical for not going far enough, for not using another biblical metaphor – the golden calf – to stigmatise the use of AI because of how it prioritises cost-saving over spiritual, individual, and communal growth. But that ship has already sailed, and there’s not much that Leo XIV – or any religious leader – can do to condemn the new advances as a 21st-century form of idolatry.

Even so, the encyclical’s vision of human nature, of the spirit of justice and empathy that needs to prevail, of the essential importance of the highest moral values – is ultimately so beneficent, so positive, so generous, so inarguably clear about our obligation to protect the weak and the poor, that it’s hard to find reasons to dismiss it.

And yet that’s the scary part. Apparently there’s been a certain amount of blowback from Silicon Valley, where the inventors and masters of the latest technology have suggested that the pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Jeremy Nixon, a founder of AGI House, a group dedicated to proving that AI is essentially equal to the human brain, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the Church hadn’t “thought deeply about . . . AI”, adding: “They couldn’t have a position on it, because they don’t understand it.” And there seems to be a widespread belief that the end product of the current research will be, in effect a new God, or at least a convincing simulacrum. Concerned about the perils of the future, our society is choosing to overlook the evidence that the downsides of AI are already upon us. Many undergraduates in marketing and advertising are acutely aware that by the time they graduate, all the jobs in advertising will have been taken by AI.

If the masters of this new technology fail to agree with what the pope sees as its dangers and drawbacks, we are in very deep trouble indeed. The problem is not that we will have a robot writing Anna Karenina. The problem is that no one will see any possible need for a novel that so exquisitely portrays the sufferings of a woman, a singular human being.

There would be no point in a book like that unless that account of a life-changing mistake could be monetised by a forward-thinking tech bro and used to finance the purchase of a bigger and better yacht, presumably serviced by a permanent underclass, by workers whose dignity – whose formerly valued and valuable jobs – have been pirated by the rapacious manifestations of artificial intelligence.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Government, Politics, Society, Technology

AI is spiralling out of control: it can be stopped

ARTIFICIAL SUPERINTELLIGENCE

Intro: East and West collaborated to end nuclear proliferation – it is time to do the same for the latest advancing technology. Washington and Beijing must come together to rein in AI’s growing threat

After the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the edge of nuclear war, global powers embarked on a concerted effort to pull it back from the brink. The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) of 1968, which limited the spread of nuclear weapons, has been a resounding success. Only a handful of countries today have access to the 80-year-old technology and those that do have not used it.

In the decades since, no technology has proved as dangerous as nuclear weapons as to require international co-ordination.

Now, however, many believe that the advance of artificial superintelligence requires a similar global effort to prevent an AI-led disaster.

Anthropic, the world’s most valuable AI company, has called for a mechanism to slow down or pause the development of advanced AI. It has warned that the technology could get out of control sooner than many think.

The company believes it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology. It says it would “likely be a good thing” if development could be delayed.

Anthropic – recently valued at $965bn (£720bn) – said it had raised the alarm because it believed AI was improving much faster than our ability to understand and control the systems.

Within the company itself, bots are not just writing code; they are also ordering around other bots and even carrying out their own research. Before long, AI could be building itself, a process called recursive self-improvement. This could start a feedback loop in which progress goes parabolic.

Sceptics insist this is just mere marketing. Anthropic has announced that it has filed for an initial public offering and is expecting a value in excess of $1tn. What could be more valuable than a technology so powerful that world leaders need to rein it in? AI that builds itself has been a premise the company has used to raise money for years.

David Sacks, a high-profile critic of Anthropic, and Donald Trump’s former AI tsar, suggested the warning was an attempt to secure a public bailout, implying it was a sign of getting the frontier AI lab nationalised.

Nonetheless, concerns about powerful AI are becoming increasingly prominent. Anthropic has kept its most powerful AI system, Mythos, out of public hands because of its ability to find security flaws in critically important computer systems.

Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, has raised the alarm about AI crashing the financial system and has warned that Mythos meant “things that we thought might happen in the next year, two years, three years or four, have now come right into the foreground”.

AI labs fear that the next generation of models will be good enough to help terrorists develop bioweapons.

If AI were to start building itself without human oversight, it would by definition become much more difficult to control. In the extreme scenarios that safety experts are concerned about, AI’s goals become detached from our own, forcing it to eliminate humanity through evolution so that we do not get in the way.

There are those who dismiss this idea as sci-fi nonsense. But supporters of a pause say even a tiny chance of extinction should be enough to make us consider how to stop it.

Establishing the need for a pause would be the easy part. Making it happen is another matter altogether. If he so wished, Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s chief executive, could send everyone home today and shut down his company. At best, though, this would delay the rise of powerful AI by a couple of months. Its two major rivals, Google and OpenAI, are not far behind. OpenAI, the developer of ChatGPT, has said that it too sees “early signs of RSI [recursive self-improvement] in today’s systems”.

It added: “We expect this to increase competitive pressures among developers and nations, and create governance challenges that existing institutions are not equipped to address.”

Even if the US government ordered all three to stop work on AI, this might only cede ground to China, whose companies are typically seen as being just three to six months behind the US.

Earlier this year at the World Economic Forum, Amodei said: “The reason we can’t [slow down] is because we have geopolitical adversaries building the same technology at a similar pace… It’s very hard to have an enforceable agreement where they slow down and we slow down.”

Practically, it would require a government-level agreement and the two nations that matter are the US and China. This sort of agreement would require Trump and Xi Jinping to co-operate on a pause, something that looks far from likely given both have compared AI to a race.

Xi has said that China must “gain a head start and secure a competitive edge” in AI, while a Trump administration action plan states that “America is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence”.

It has also emerged that the National Security Agency have been using Mythos to carry out cyber-attacks. This suggests the US government is making enthusiastic use of the latest systems instead of fearing their consequences.

Pessimists often compare the technology and its potential consequences to nuclear weapons, but the two are nothing alike.

The destructive capabilities of atomic warheads are undisputed, whereas AI’s safety risks can appear nebulous. The latter’s upside may also be significant: its supporters believe it can cure disease, lead to interstellar space travel, and make work optional.

What is more, pressing pause on the AI race is not without its own set of risks. Suspending work on AI could cause an economic crash. The chips and data centres that AI relies on have driven a stock market boom that has helped sustain the US economy. Inhibiting demand for them could do the opposite.

There have been signs that China and the US are changing tack. The White House has raised the alarm about Mythos and Trump has just signed an executive order calling for AI models to be reviewed before release.

Beijing has called for a “global AI governance framework” to rein in the technology. This is miles away from the global deal Anthropic has called for, but campaigners have taken it as a positive sign.

The political zeitgeist can move very quickly. The US and its allies have succeeded to a certain extent in deterring nuclear proliferation. To do so similarly with AI is going to be hard, but as we have seen with nuclear weapons, global governance can come together and work for the common good.

Standard