Why do Experts Disagree on Existential Risk and P(doom)? A Survey of AI Experts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14870v1
• Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 01:51:29 GMT
• Title: Why do Experts Disagree on Existential Risk and P(doom)? A Survey of AI Experts
• Authors: Severin Field,
• Abstract summary: Research on catastrophic risks and AI alignment is often met with skepticism by experts.<n>Online debate over the existential risk of AI has begun to turn tribal.<n>I surveyed 111 AI experts on their familiarity with AI safety concepts.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is likely to be one of humanity's most consequential technological advancements. Leading AI labs and scientists have called for the global prioritization of AI safety citing existential risks comparable to nuclear war. However, research on catastrophic risks and AI alignment is often met with skepticism, even by experts. Furthermore, online debate over the existential risk of AI has begun to turn tribal (e.g. name-calling such as "doomer" or "accelerationist"). Until now, no systematic study has explored the patterns of belief and the levels of familiarity with AI safety concepts among experts. I surveyed 111 AI experts on their familiarity with AI safety concepts, key objections to AI safety, and reactions to safety arguments. My findings reveal that AI experts cluster into two viewpoints -- an "AI as controllable tool" and an "AI as uncontrollable agent" perspective -- diverging in beliefs toward the importance of AI safety. While most experts (78%) agreed or strongly agreed that "technical AI researchers should be concerned about catastrophic risks", many were unfamiliar with specific AI safety concepts. For example, only 21% of surveyed experts had heard of "instrumental convergence," a fundamental concept in AI safety predicting that advanced AI systems will tend to pursue common sub-goals (such as self-preservation). The least concerned participants were the least familiar with concepts like this, suggesting that effective communication of AI safety should begin with establishing clear conceptual foundations in the field.

Related papers

• Superintelligent Agents Pose Catastrophic Risks: Can Scientist AI Offer a Safer Path? [37.13209023718946]
  Unchecked AI agency poses significant risks to public safety and security.<n>We discuss how these risks arise from current AI training methods.<n>We propose a core building block for further advances the development of a non-agentic AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:28:36Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context.<n>We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• AI Safety: A Climb To Armageddon? [0.0]
  The paper examines three response strategies: Optimism, Mitigation, and Holism. The surprising robustness of the argument forces a re-examination of core assumptions around AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T08:41:54Z)
• AI Safety: Necessary, but insufficient and possibly problematic [1.6797508081737678]
  This article critically examines the recent hype around AI safety. We consider what 'AI safety' actually means, and outline the dominant concepts that the digital footprint of AI safety aligns with. We share our concerns on how AI safety may normalize AI that advances structural harm through providing exploitative and harmful AI with a veneer of safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T06:18:42Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Understanding and Avoiding AI Failures: A Practical Guide [0.6526824510982799]
  We create a framework for understanding the risks associated with AI applications. We also use AI safety principles to quantify the unique risks of increased intelligence and human-like qualities in AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-22T17:05:27Z)

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.