The New York Times: Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet and Google, is trying to speed up the release of AI technology by taking on more risk.
Mr. Pichai has tried to accelerate product approval reviews, according to the presentation reviewed by The Times.
The company established a fast-track review process called the “Green Lane” initiative, pushing groups of employees who try to ensure that technology is fair and ethical to more quickly approve its upcoming A.I. technology.
The company will also find ways for teams developing A.I. to conduct their own reviews, and it will “recalibrate” the level of risk it is willing to take when releasing the technology, according to the presentation.
This change is in response to OpenAI's public release of ChatGPT. It is evidence that the race between Google/DeepMind and Microsoft/OpenAI is eroding ethics and safety.
Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind, urged caution in his recent interview in Time:
He says AI is now “on the cusp” of being able to make tools that could be deeply damaging to human civilization, and urges his competitors to proceed with more caution than before.
“When it comes to very powerful technologies—and obviously AI is going to be one of the most powerful ever—we need to be careful,” he says.
“Not everybody is thinking about those things. It’s like experimentalists, many of whom don’t realize they’re holding dangerous material.”
Worse still, Hassabis points out, we are the guinea pigs.
Alphabet/Google is trying to accelerate a technology that its own subsidiary says is powerful and dangerous.
Update: Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, tweeted:
"recalibrate" means "increase" obviously.
disappointing to see this six-week development. openai will continually decrease the level of risk we are comfortable taking with new models as they get more powerful, not the other way around.
Michael - thanks for summarizing this alarming development.
I suspect that in 50 to 100 years, these tech CEOs, and the AI researchers who worked for them, may be remembered as some of the most reckless, irresponsible, hubristic, and unethical humans who have ever influenced human history.
They have absolutely no democratic mandate from the 8 billion humans they will affect, to develop the systems they are developing. They have not made a compelling case to the public that the benefits will exceed the risks. They are paying lip service to AI safety while charging ahead at full speed towards a precipice.
IMHO, EAs should consider focusing a bit more on hitting the pause button on all advanced AI research, and stop pretending that 'technical AI alignment research' will significantly reduce any of the catastrophic risks from these corporate arms races.
Whatever benefits humanity may eventually derive from AI will still be there for the taking in 100 years, 500 years, 1,000 years. We may not live to see them, if AI doesn't solve longevity in our lifetimes. But I'd rather see a future where AI research is paused for a century or two, and our great-grandkids have a fighting chance at survival, than one where we make a foolhardy bet that these AI companies are actually making rational risk/benefit decisions in our collective interests.
(Sorry for the feisty tone here, but I'm frustrated that so many EAs seem to put so much faith in these corporations and their 'AI safety' window dressing.)