Arts, Books, Psychology, Science

Book Review: Agency

LITERARY REVIEW

Intro: The father of positive psychology, Martin Seligman, offers a three-step plan that means you can take control of your own destiny

Shakespeare got it right: “All things be ready, if our minds be so,” says King Harry in Henry V. The scene depicts the English being vastly outnumbered by French forces, but he has no doubt what will bring about an English victory on St Crispin’s Day.

Sheer will, he tells the assembled Lords. Will is at the root of agency; willpower drives performance and success. Even in these depressed and uncertain times, that seems self-evident.

Over a half-a-century ago, however, the world-renowned psychologist, Martin Seligman, witnessed the collapse of will in his best student at Cornell University.

Faced with a project well within her capabilities she simply gave up, because she had convinced herself she couldn’t do it.

Her professor realised that, “in 1968, psychology had no vocabulary for what I wanted to say”.

For even the rival “camps” in his subject agreed on one thing: “Free will was an illusion. People were products – of conditioning, of unconscious drives, or forces beyond their control.”

It became Seligman’s mission to identify, “the most important force in human experience: agency – the belief that you can influence your own future”. He thought of his brilliant student giving up and wondered if she might have been able to learn how to persist, how to strive for what seemed impossible, and how to resist her own sense of inadequacy.

“Agency”, he writes, is “the audacious human belief that tomorrow can be better than today, and that we have the power to make it so.”

Seligman is widely respected as the founder of positive psychology – the scientific study of what makes life worth living and what can make people thrive.

He is known for his inspiring works on happiness, optimism, change, and wellbeing – yet he is most emphatically not to be mistaken for a self-help guru or therapist.

His bracing view that individuals can take control of their own lives is central. This hard-won optimism counters his own natural depressive tendencies by focusing on human strength, not weakness – as he insists, the most effective way to become more optimistic is through “mental toughness”.

Strict scientific data underpins whatever motivational advice readers may take from his many books.

This latest volume is perhaps the most ambitious, embracing a vast sweep of human history in order to assess how “agency” affects human progress and survival.

There are lessons for the individual in his analysis of why some societies thrive, why some flounder, and how whole civilisations can be swept away.

Seligman admits to being a pessimist himself, which perhaps explains his life’s work as a personal pep talk.

He identifies three elements that combine to form the energy behind “the belief that I can achieve my goals” – which is the agency driving the human spirit.

1. Efficacy is “my estimate of achieving a specific goal in the here and now”. 2. Optimism is about “achievement in the future”. 3. Imagination is “my mental representation of the range of goals I can achieve beyond the here and now”.

That three-step works on a personal level. But the whole drive of the book is societal too: “Efficacy causes trying hard, optimism causes persistence, and imagination causes innovation. This is exactly how agency causes progress.”

This is the core belief of the book. Without agency there is no action.

When a society is confident and forward-looking, progress occurs. When it is absent the result is stagnation – a malaise which, incidentally, some readers may recognise in Britain today.

TWO

To illustrate his theory, Seligman conducts us on an exhilarating whistlestop tour through human history, seeking answers to the question, “Why some [people] crumble under life’s blows while others bounce back.”

Why are some individuals resilient while others exhibit “Learned Helplessness”? How does that play out across a whole culture? Is it inevitably true that “poverty . . . causes present-mindedness and wealth causes future-mindedness”? What does rigorous belief in an ideology or religion do to human agency? Just some of the fascinating and vital questions Seligman poses in this hugely important book.

His answers are to be found in history. He examines the later books of the Hebrew Bible and makes a comparison between their growth of human agency, and the writings of the Zhou Dynasty in China and the Golden Age of Greece: “Three unrelated civilisations across the globe and within a broadly comparable period, recognise the power of human agency and their gods retreat.”  

He compares the development of those three different cultures and observes that their Golden periods of success arrived once people had lessened their slavish belief in gods as the source of power, who therefore had to be obeyed. “When we mortals are thought to control our destiny, we actually do. When supernatural forces . . . are thought to control our destiny, we languish,” he notes. Readers should be reminded this is a book written by a psychologist.

Technology allows Seligman to dissect language, listing “agentic” words of action and determination and hope used through key texts and documents, which indicate the states of mind of individuals and societies.

After a cheerful and useful chapter called More Agency In Your Life (tips on how to learn optimism), Seligman does an extraordinary thing.

This brilliant book about human agency ends with what some critics’ regard as a kowtow to Artificial Intelligence (AI). He even shows how it can take his place in solving problems.

I did wonder if it had infected the brilliant brain of a man who has sought nothing but good, yet fails to grasp the obvious peril that the will of AI will banish human agency altogether.

– Agency by Martin Seligman is published by John Murray One, 400pp

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Science, Society, Technology

Tech bosses have hidden motives in slowing AI progress

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intro: What’s the real reason tech bosses are warning us about their AI creations? It’s certainly nothing to do with believing we are on the verge of wiping out humanity

The terrifying message from Silicon Valley is that we’re all doomed as the developers of artificial intelligence foretell the apocalypse for which they will themselves be responsible.

A high-profile British employee of Anthropic announced he was leaving over fears his company and its main competitor, OpenAI, were “gambling with our lives” by rushing to create a digital “superintelligence” that could destroy humanity.

Some working in AI – known as “doomers” – have expressed similar fears, but the warning by Anthropic’s departing employee went viral with many others in the company swiftly echoing the stark warnings. A senior safety researcher at the same company estimated there was more than a 10 per cent chance that AI “could kill all humans” within a decade.

Anthropic boss Dario Amodei largely agrees with the sentiments, saying AI had been “advancing drastically faster” and also called his industry to “slow down” and accept external regulation.

OpenAI boss Sam Altman (creator of ChatGPT) and AI developer Elon Musk followed suit.

Amodei acknowledged that the US government recognises the West is racing to develop superintelligent AI before China and other “autocracies” and that pulling back amounted to a “significant national security risk”.

But he warned that after a notorious incident this summer – in which a “swarm” of AI agents belonging to OpenAI launched sophisticated cyberattacks on rival AI company Hugging Face – a more capable swarm might “take over the entire internet” within as little as six months.

TWO

The media and Washington establishment have been listening agog to these apocalyptic pronouncements.

So, are we all genuinely doomed – or might there be another explanation for all this terrifying recent rhetoric?

Donald Trump certainly believes so, sticking to his firm beliefs on pushing ahead with AI. Critics insist that he is only thinking about himself: America has crucial midterm elections in November and Trump, they say, doesn’t want to do anything to harm the vast investment in AI that has pushed the US stock market to record highs and buoyed the country’s economy.

This may indeed be part of his thinking – but that doesn’t necessarily mean the President is wrong in wanting to pursue AI development.

Many experts claim that all those issuing dire warnings about AI being an imminent threat to the human race are wildly exaggerating. The doomers’ predictions, they argue, depend on AI achieving superintelligent, superhuman abilities – primarily by AI learning how to improve itself, a process known as “recursive self-improvement”.

We are, however, nowhere near such superintelligence, say critics in the tech world.

The doomers have also been accused of ignoring the essential truth that AI software and mathematical models aren’t innately malicious or rebellious but – as with the Hugging Face hacking scandal – are simply trying to meet objectives set for it by its human designers.

The risks of AI, they counter, are vastly outweighed by the potential benefits, from economic productivity to medicine, military gains, and much else.

These sceptics have dismissed previous warnings by Amodei and others as attempts to get free publicity – and they certainly might draw in investors and customers attracted by all the talk of how devastatingly powerful AI may be.

Critics believe there are other – rather more selfish – reasons behind the calls from Anthropic and OpenAI to slow down research and have their industry better regulated.

The pair may be the biggest players in AI but a multitude of rivals are trying to catch up.

Some industry observers have suggested that Anthropic and OpenAI may be trying to preserve their substantial lead by suddenly demanding a general moratorium on research and thus cementing their duopoly.

They may have additional financial motives, too. Both companies have shelled out vast sums on AI research and development but are struggling to find paying customers.

So when ChatGPT owner Sam Altman – an entrepreneur hardly famous for his ethical approach – announced a few days ago that he was pausing OpenAI’s stock market launch for another year, supposedly amid concerns over AI safety, some whispered that he had simply latched on to the controversy as an excuse to delay matters until his company is in a better shape.

David Sacks, a venture capitalist who served as Trump’s “AI Tsar” and now co-chairs the President’s council of science and technology advisers, has observed waspishly that AI leaders need to “stop pretending the motivation to ‘slow down’ is purely altruistic”.

Sacks, who like others in Trump’s administration believes that claims of an AI apocalypse are a thinly-veiled attempt to damage the Republicans in the mid-terms, has dismissed the gloomy predictions as scaremongering.

“We’ve seen this movie before,” he told Bloomberg. “We saw it with global warming: they’ve taken some legitimate concerns and blown it out of proportion.”

And there are further reasons why many are increasingly taking the doomsayers with such a hefty pinch of salt.

The most obvious question is: if these bosses genuinely believe there is a high risk that AI could imminently kill us all, why haven’t they stopped already?

Sceptics also point out the supposed scenarios for AI Armageddon are unconvincingly woolly. Ask doomers how AI will wipe us out and they become vague.

A lot of the theorising hasn’t gone much further than the notorious “paperclip maximiser” advanced by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostram in 2003.

He outlined how a superintelligent computer, asked to focus entirely on producing as many paperclips as possible, would take the instruction to a total extreme, co-opting the world’s entire resources and destroying humanity after deciding they were an obstacle to making more clips (having first harvested the iron in our blood to make more paperclips). Thought-provoking, perhaps – but surely fanciful.

Some have suggested that AI could detonate a nuclear bomb, launch a global drone war, create “misinformation” that could cause one country to attack another, or develop a lethal virus – though how it would physically do any of this is another matter entirely.

Alternatively, it could supposedly wipe us out by starving us of essential resources such as food and medicine. All these scenarios and more have been brandished by the doomers – though with few details on how it might actually happen.

Some experts complain that doomer predictions that the human race could be totally exterminated within years are unfeasible while an AI would find it very difficult to hack the entire internet. The real danger, they say, isn’t AI going rogue but humans misusing it.

Professor Gary Marcus, a renowned cognitive scientist at New York University, says the notion that AI will kill everyone within a few years is mostly “preposterous”.

Marcus believes AI could certainly be used to cripple infrastructure – perhaps hospitals or air or train networks, but that the total extinction of the human race is unfeasible.

He and other sceptics also insist that it would be vanishingly difficult for an AI to hack the entire internet, as Anthropic has now suggested.

THREE

Sceptics also claim it is non-sensical for anyone to try to put a mathematical number on the likelihood of AI destroying us all and emphasise how the doomers hardly help themselves given that their estimates of how long such a catastrophe will take to occur vary so widely.

For instance, Jack Clark, Anthropic’s co-founder, estimates that AI won’t start “doing dangerous stuff” for about 20 years.

Oren Etzioni, a professor at the University of Washington and founder of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, insists we are “very far away” from AI polishing everyone off – and that the risk of a deadly virus escaping a lab, for example, is far higher.

Some claim that the AI Cassandras have essentially lost all perspective. Having devoted their careers to researching AI because they believe so strongly in its potential, they are more susceptible to over-emphasising its power – and by extension, perhaps, their own importance.

President Trump may be somewhat blasé in dismissing all safety concerns around AI as just a “hoax”.

But it seems premature to be counting the days before our robot overlords carry out the extinction of our species.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Research, Science, Society, Technology

Superintelligent AI and its threat to humanity

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Intro: Humanity faces an uncertain fate as experts brace for superintelligent AI. The tech industry claims looming “singularity” will change everything

Every time one of the world’s top artificial intelligence companies unveils a new system, employees at the US research organisation METR put it through its paces. Its ability is tested to complete a series of increasingly complex tasks.

The tasks are measured by how long each one would take a skilled human. They range from trivial arithmetic (two seconds) and completing a game of Wordle (13 minutes) to building complex military satellite software (taking a human expert 14.5 hours).

The test then serves as a gauge as to how capable AI has become – and where it might go.

The first version of ChatGPT, released in 2022, could only perform simple tasks that would take a human a few seconds.

But as AI systems have become more powerful, they are able to complete more complex actions that would take humans hours or days, such as breaking into a medical website and downloading all its data.

METR has found that AI capabilities are doubling in power every 196 days. Plotted on a graph, this progress starts slowly then rapidly accelerates to a near-vertical plane.

Converse with anyone in the AI industry for any length of time and the likelihood of them pulling up a version of the chart approaches 100pc, to the point where it has become a meme in its own right. It is being referred to as the most important chart in the world. The chart goes off the scale.

Last month, the AI lab Anthropic announced it had developed a new system, called Mythos, that it said was too powerful to release to the public because of its ability to find gaping holes in online security systems.

When METR’s researchers released the results of Mythos’s capability and function, they scored the system at 16 hours – meaning the world’s most powerful AI can now automate tasks that would take a human two full eight-hour shifts.

Nonetheless, they said the model was “at the upper end” of their ability to test. In other words, progress has become too fast for them to measure.

Not everybody is convinced by the results because the test only measures if a machine can do something half the time, not if it can do it consistently. The METR chart has, however, captured many people’s imaginations for two reasons.

First, the exponential growth looks strikingly similar to “Moore’s Law”, the maxim that has governed the electronics industry for more than half a century, stating that microchips roughly double in power every two years.

Second, it measures abilities, rather than intelligence. While many AI “benchmarks” resemble university exams and gradings, dealing in abstract reasoning or maths, the METR test studies whether AI can actually work.

It suggests that on current trends, vast amounts of human tasks could be automated in the next couple of years – including, most crucially of all, the art of developing AI models itself.

At that threshold, known in the tech industry as “recursive self-improvement”, all bets are off.

The concept is closely linked to superhuman AI because an AI that can make itself smarter could act like an evolutionary chain reaction, rapidly building to a system vastly more capable than mankind.

AI would have become – as IJ Good, the Bletchley Park codebreaker, predicted in 1965 – “the last invention that man need make”. Almost Orwellian in thought.

For 60 years, the idea seemed out of reach. But much of Silicon Valley believes this is about to change – and the US government is starting to notice.

The vast majority of people’s experience of AI has not changed much in the last couple of years. The release of ChatGPT in 2022 generated an initial flurry of excitement and fear in equal measure but, since then, progress has been less obvious.

The AI experience for many people comes in seeing an obviously fake video on their social media feeds, seeing an AI overview at the top of their search results, or having a bot that “helpfully” offers to summarise their emails.

But at the coalface, people are rapidly bringing forward their timelines for the day that superintelligence arrives.

Standard