Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02843v2
• Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:15:42 GMT
• Title: Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
• Authors: Katja Grace, Harlan Stewart, Julia Fabienne Sandkühler, Stephen Thomas, Ben Weinstein-Raun, Jan Brauner,
• Abstract summary: Most respondents expressed substantial uncertainty about the long-term value of AI progress. More than half suggested that "substantial" or "extreme" concern is warranted about six different AI-related scenarios. There was disagreement about whether faster or slower AI progress would be better for the future of humanity.
• Score: 1.0717301750064765
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In the largest survey of its kind, 2,778 researchers who had published in top-tier artificial intelligence (AI) venues gave predictions on the pace of AI progress and the nature and impacts of advanced AI systems The aggregate forecasts give at least a 50% chance of AI systems achieving several milestones by 2028, including autonomously constructing a payment processing site from scratch, creating a song indistinguishable from a new song by a popular musician, and autonomously downloading and fine-tuning a large language model. If science continues undisrupted, the chance of unaided machines outperforming humans in every possible task was estimated at 10% by 2027, and 50% by 2047. The latter estimate is 13 years earlier than that reached in a similar survey we conducted only one year earlier [Grace et al., 2022]. However, the chance of all human occupations becoming fully automatable was forecast to reach 10% by 2037, and 50% as late as 2116 (compared to 2164 in the 2022 survey). Most respondents expressed substantial uncertainty about the long-term value of AI progress: While 68.3% thought good outcomes from superhuman AI are more likely than bad, of these net optimists 48% gave at least a 5% chance of extremely bad outcomes such as human extinction, and 59% of net pessimists gave 5% or more to extremely good outcomes. Between 38% and 51% of respondents gave at least a 10% chance to advanced AI leading to outcomes as bad as human extinction. More than half suggested that "substantial" or "extreme" concern is warranted about six different AI-related scenarios, including misinformation, authoritarian control, and inequality. There was disagreement about whether faster or slower AI progress would be better for the future of humanity. However, there was broad agreement that research aimed at minimizing potential risks from AI systems ought to be prioritized more.

Related papers

• What Do People Think about Sentient AI? [0.0]
  We present the first nationally representative survey data on the topic of sentient AI. Across one wave of data collection in 2021 and two in 2023, we found mind perception and moral concern for AI well-being was higher than predicted. We argue that, whether or not AIs become sentient, the discussion itself may overhaul human-computer interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T21:04:39Z)
• Harvard Undergraduate Survey on Generative AI [0.0]
  We study the influence of AI on the study habits, class choices, and career prospects of Harvard undergraduates. For roughly 25% of students, AI has begun to substitute for attending office hours and completing required readings. Half of students are concerned that AI will negatively impact their job prospects, and over half of students wish that Harvard had more classes on the future impacts of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T18:47:08Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• Artificial intelligence adoption in the physical sciences, natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences and the arts and humanities: A bibliometric analysis of research publications from 1960-2021 [73.06361680847708]
  In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI, but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI (many in computer science), but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. We conclude that the context of the current surge appears different, and that interdisciplinary AI application is likely to be sustained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T14:08:07Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Forecasting AI Progress: Evidence from a Survey of Machine Learning Researchers [0.0]
  We report the results from a large survey of AI and machine learning (ML) researchers on their beliefs about progress in AI. In aggregate, AI/ML researchers surveyed placed a 50% likelihood of human-level machine intelligence being achieved by 2060. Forecasts of several near-term AI milestones have reduced in time, suggesting more optimism about AI progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T19:05:12Z)
• On the Influence of Explainable AI on Automation Bias [0.0]
  We aim to shed light on the potential to influence automation bias by explainable AI (XAI) We conduct an online experiment with regard to hotel review classifications and discuss first results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-19T12:54:23Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.