Making AI Inevitable: Historical Perspective and the Problems of Predicting Long-Term Technological Change

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16692v1
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 21:18:37 GMT
• Title: Making AI Inevitable: Historical Perspective and the Problems of Predicting Long-Term Technological Change
• Authors: Mark Fisher, John Severini,
• Abstract summary: It focuses on the deep disagreements over whether artificial general intelligence will prove transformative for human society.<n>The study begins by distinguishing two fundamental camps in this debate.<n>It shows the wide range of different arguments used to justify either the transformationalist or skeptical position.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study demonstrates the extent to which prominent debates about the future of AI are best understood as subjective, philosophical disagreements over the history and future of technological change rather than as objective, material disagreements over the technologies themselves. It focuses on the deep disagreements over whether artificial general intelligence (AGI) will prove transformative for human society; a question that is analytically prior to that of whether this transformative effect will help or harm humanity. The study begins by distinguishing two fundamental camps in this debate. The first of these can be identified as "transformationalists," who argue that continued AI development will inevitably have a profound effect on society. Opposed to them are "skeptics," a more eclectic group united by their disbelief that AI can or will live up to such high expectations. Each camp admits further "strong" and "weak" variants depending on their tolerance for epistemic risk. These stylized contrasts help to identify a set of fundamental questions that shape the camps' respective interpretations of the future of AI. Three questions in particular are focused on: the possibility of non-biological intelligence, the appropriate time frame of technological predictions, and the assumed trajectory of technological development. In highlighting these specific points of non-technical disagreement, this study demonstrates the wide range of different arguments used to justify either the transformationalist or skeptical position. At the same time, it highlights the strong argumentative burden of the transformationalist position, the way that belief in this position creates competitive pressures to achieve first-mover advantage, and the need to widen the concept of "expertise" in debates surrounding the future development of AI.

Related papers

• What Understanding Means in AI-Laden Astronomy [0.20336617819227906]
  Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming astronomical research.<n>This article argues that philosophy of science offers essential tools for navigating AI's integration into astronomy.<n>We propose "pragmatic understanding" as a framework for integration--recognizing AI as a tool that extends human cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T03:28:38Z)
• HybridQuestion: Human-AI Collaboration for Identifying High-Impact Research Questions [48.1029746371619]
  "AI Scientist" paradigm is transforming scientific research by automating key stages of the research process.<n>Key question remains unclear: can AI scientists identify meaningful research questions?<n>We propose a human-AI hybrid solution that integrates scalable data processing capabilities of AI with the value judgment of human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-18T15:10:38Z)
• Why They Disagree: Decoding Differences in Opinions about AI Risk on the Lex Fridman Podcast [0.0]
  This paper analyzes contemporary debates about AI risk.<n>We find that differences in perspectives about existential risk ("X-risk") arise from differences in causal premises about design vs. emergence in complex systems.<n>Disagreements about these two forms of AI risk appear to share two properties: neither involves significant disagreements on moral values and both can be described in terms of differing views on the extent of boundedness of human rationality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-06T08:48:30Z)
• The Societal Impact of Foundation Models: Advancing Evidence-based AI Policy [14.679051711850393]
  dissertation explains how technology and society coevolve in the age of AI, organized around three themes.<n>First, the conceptual framing: the capabilities, risks, and the supply chain that grounds foundation models in the broader economy.<n>Second, the empirical insights that enrich the conceptual foundations: transparency created via evaluations at the model level and indexes at the organization level.<n>Third, the transition from understanding to action: superior understanding of the societal impact of foundation models advances evidence-based AI policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T07:16:48Z)
• Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI [67.58673784790375]
  We argue that the 'bigger is better' AI paradigm is not only fragile scientifically, but comes with undesirable consequences.<n>First, it is not sustainable, as, despite efficiency improvements, its compute demands increase faster than model performance.<n>Second, it implies focusing on certain problems at the expense of others, leaving aside important applications, e.g. health, education, or the climate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T14:43:54Z)
• Artificial Intelligence from Idea to Implementation. How Can AI Reshape the Education Landscape? [0.0]
  The paper shows how AI technologies have moved from theoretical constructs to practical tools that are reshaping pedagogical approaches and student engagement. The essay concludes by discussing the prospects of AI in education, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both technological advancements and societal implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-14T04:40:16Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Now, Later, and Lasting: Ten Priorities for AI Research, Policy, and Practice [63.20307830884542]
  Next several decades may well be a turning point for humanity, comparable to the industrial revolution. Launched a decade ago, the project is committed to a perpetual series of studies by multidisciplinary experts. We offer ten recommendations for action that collectively address both the short- and long-term potential impacts of AI technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T22:18:31Z)
• Artificial Intelligence: Arguments for Catastrophic Risk [0.0]
  We review two influential arguments purporting to show how AI could pose catastrophic risks. The first argument -- the Problem of Power-Seeking -- claims that advanced AI systems are likely to engage in dangerous power-seeking behavior. The second argument claims that the development of human-level AI will unlock rapid further progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T19:34:13Z)
• Predictable Artificial Intelligence [77.1127726638209]
  This paper introduces the ideas and challenges of Predictable AI.<n>It explores the ways in which we can anticipate key validity indicators of present and future AI ecosystems.<n>We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z)
• Recognition of All Categories of Entities by AI [20.220102335024706]
  This paper presents a new argumentative option to view the ontological sextet as a comprehensive technological map. We predict that in the relatively near future, AI will be able to recognize various entities to the same degree as humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-13T08:00:42Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)

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.