Category Archives: Politics

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
Artificial Intelligence, Britain, Government, Politics, Society, Technology

Proposed ‘kill switch’ for AI data centres

CYBER SECURITY

UK politicians are pushing for an AI “kill switch” that would allow ministers to shut down data centres.

Campaigners are seeking new laws that would give the Government powers to switch off AI systems in the event of a “catastrophic risk”.

A proposed amendment to the cyber security and resilience bill has the backing of at least 11 MPs, and is part of a coordinated campaign from Control AI, a group calling for strict AI regulations. The plans have not been endorsed by the Government, but demonstrate growing concerns about Artificial Intelligence among Members of Parliament.

Donald Trump, too, has recently expressed support for a kill switch and told Fox News that there should be government powers to shut down AI.

The amendment, proposed by Labour’s Alex Sobel, would give the technology secretary “last resort powers” to direct the shutdown of data centres “in the event of an AI security or operational emergency”.

The powers would come into force if there were a “catastrophic risk” to critical infrastructure, national security, or “severe, large-scale harm to human life”. Data centre operators would have to install infrastructure allowing them to be stopped instantly and establish secure communications to the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology to enable ministers to act.

Meanwhile, Dario Amodei, the Anthropic chief executive, is expected to meet a group of 50 top European chief executives at a two-day forum to discuss AI adoption across the private sector.

Standard
Business, Government, Politics

The West’s hypocrisy on corruption is amoral

DUPLICITOUS STANDARDS

Intro: Westerners have no right to feel morally superior over those in developing nations

The West likes to believe corruption is something that happens elsewhere. It is presented as a pathology of poorer countries, weak institutions, and unstable governments. In much of Africa, corruption is routinely cited by Western politicians, the media, and international organisations as evidence of failed governance. It is used to justify conditions on aid, scepticism towards investment and, increasingly, a broader sense of moral superiority.

Yet the uncomfortable truth is that many of the same behaviours exist in Britain, Europe, and the United States. The difference is not always the conduct itself. The difference is often the language we use to describe it. In Western democracies, power rarely operates through crude bribery or overt illegality.

Instead, it works through relationships, access, networks, and privileged information. Outcomes are shaped quietly, informally, and often entirely within the rules. Those closest to political and financial power gain opportunities, protection, and influence that others do not. We prefer to call this lobbying, networking, or simply “how things get done”. But if similar systems operated elsewhere, we would often call them corruption.

The global pandemic exposed this contradiction particularly clearly. Between February and November 2020, more than £3.7bn of UK PPE contracts were channelled through a “VIP lane” for companies with political connections. Those firms were significantly more likely to secure government contracts, even where they had limited relevant experience.

Had a similar process emerged in an African country – where politically connected individuals were fast-tracked for lucrative state contracts during a national emergency – Western governments and media outlets would almost certainly have described it as corruption. In Britain, however, the language was notably softer: “urgency”, “extraordinary circumstances”, “procurement challenges”. The same behaviour, but a different use of language and vocabulary. What increasingly troubles the public is not simply individual scandals, but the perception that elite networks operate by different rules altogether.

The Epstein affair reinforced that suspicion powerfully. It exposed the extraordinary proximity between convicted offenders and some of the most influential political, financial, and social figures in the Western world.

The main focus of accountability for the sexual abuse was rightly directed at Jeffrey Epstein himself and later Ghislaine Maxwell. But many others associated with Epstein – some of whom knowingly enabled, tolerated, or benefited from the network of influence and privilege surrounding him – have emerged largely untouched.

For many people, this reinforced the belief that wealth, influence, and proximity to power can create a form of informal immunity. Not necessarily from the law itself, but from the level of scrutiny and accountability that would apply to ordinary people – or indeed to public figures in other countries.

When access, relationships, and privileged information determine outcomes, public trust is inevitably eroded – regardless of whether formal rules have been technically breached.

If confidence in democratic institutions is to be rebuilt, it will require more than compliance processes and carefully managed optics. It demands a far more honest recognition of how power actually operates within Western systems.

Because the real danger is not simply that corruption exists elsewhere. It is that the West has become extraordinarily skilled at defining its own behaviour in ways that prevent it from recognising corruption when it is closest to home.

Standard