Artificial contradictions
Am I a technology optimist or a prophet of doom? It depends on what day of the week it is, we are to believe the Class Struggle columnists.
Ki-generated illustration from Midjourney
Main moments
On Friday, Maja van der Velden and Henrik Skaug Sætre criticized Inga Strümke and me for thinking that artificial intelligence (AI) is “the solution to almost all our political and social problems.” On Monday, however, the Centre for Long-Term Policy, where I am head of academic affairs, was seated in a booth with “doomsday preachers” by Annelin Eriksen.
That I can, within a span of a few days, be placed in complete opposite booths in the same newspaper testifies to a problem in the discussion around KI: that we seek simple categorizations in the face of complexity and uncertainty.
As Eriksen himself points out, there is a middle ground; a space for nuanced perspectives that take uncertainty seriously and neither glorify nor demonise technology. In her own work, Skaug Sætra has attempted to break down binary contradictions between those who focus on “short-term” problems associated with AI, such as discrimination and injustice, and those who focus on “long-term” catastrophic threats.
A constructive conversation must reside in this nuanced middle ground. The fact that I highlight both the possibilities and the threats of KI is not an expression of a Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality, but rather an expression of the fact that KI has both advantages and disadvantages. KI has tremendous potential and can help solve some of the most pressing challenges we face. However, technology is also associated with significant threats, both now and in the future.
Some people respond to the fact that we are highlighting opportunities at KI that have not yet been realized. But technology is advancing at a pace that means reactive regulation and adaptation that does not take over possible future systems will become outdated before they come into effect. We are therefore compelled to look further ahead. Then we can't help but take seriously hypothetical scenarios, which could occur if the AI systems become much more powerful.
KI gives us more than enough challenges. We don't need to create further problems by inventing artificial opposites.
More from Langsikt
Data is not like oil. It's better.
Data lacks what we had for oil: an institutional architecture around the resource.
Pseudocode is easy -- politics is hard. The AI Commanders Build the Bridge
if/else solves nothing in an adaptive, complex system like Norway. AI policy requires systems understanding, considerations of nature, security and voter acceptance—and it requires common principles before we can write the concrete features.
Norway contributes to the growth of others
AI is becoming the most important infrastructure of our time. Norway has significant financial interests, but is falling behind in the industrial sector. It makes us rich as investors -- and vulnerable as business.
AI threats in the short and long term
The fact that KI is causing serious problems today does not mean that we can dismiss the threats of the future.