# Critique of the AI Pause Open Letter: A Mediocre Call to Action
Written on
Chapter 1: Introduction to the AI Pause Debate
Recent weeks have been bustling with discussions surrounding the future of artificial intelligence, particularly in relation to GPT-4 and the concept of longtermism. If you haven't yet explored the "Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter," I highly recommend doing so. Esteemed scholars like Dr. Emily Bender, Dr. Timnit Gebru, and Dr. Meg Mitchell have raised critical questions and shared compelling insights through social media and various news outlets. Their contributions deserve attention, as they bring forth essential points that should not be overlooked. I echo their sentiments and will not reiterate their established views.
Let’s redirect our focus to the lackluster nature of the request for an AI pause. I would rate it a C. While my frustrations are numerous, I will concentrate on three specific statements from the letter.
Section 1.1: Ambiguities in Collaboration
“AI labs and independent experts should use this pause to jointly develop and implement a set of shared safety protocols for advanced AI design and development that are rigorously audited and overseen by independent outside experts.” Which AI labs and which independent researchers are being referred to? No specific names were mentioned, leaving this as an open invitation that may attract individuals with varying degrees of expertise.
Do these AI professionals and independent researchers have established relationships? Collaboration often relies on trust. How will they coordinate meetings? Scheduling a simple Zoom call can take weeks for just two participants. Who will take the lead — a so-called tech “leader”? Without a concrete strategy, the likelihood of achieving meaningful outcomes remains slim.
Subsection 1.1.1: Governance Challenges
“AI developers must work with policymakers to dramatically accelerate development of robust AI governance systems.” Are AI developers genuinely willing to collaborate with policymakers? Do they understand how to engage with them effectively? The viewpoints from both groups often clash. AI developers may lack insight into policy-making processes, while policymakers frequently fail to grasp the complexities of AI. A foundational course could be beneficial, but time constraints for both parties complicate this.
What kind of governance framework can realistically be established in just six months? The rapid pace of AI development contrasts sharply with the slow, deliberate nature of governmental processes. Without a clear strategy, the chances for productive collaboration seem bleak.
Section 1.2: Redefining Research Objectives
“AI research and development should be refocused on making today’s powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy, and loyal.” A crucial first step is to ask why this research and development is necessary. Responses like “it's innovative” or “it’s faster” are no longer adequate. We need to consider what problems this technology solves and what new issues it may introduce.
The calls for ethical AI and its variants, such as explainable and responsible AI, have been echoing for years. This raises the question of whether the push for safe and robust AI inadvertently assigns undue authority to these systems, which is concerning. Integrating ethical practices in AI could lead to a "move slower and mend things" philosophy that the pro-AI community may resist.
Chapter 2: The Lack of Action
The most glaring evidence of the superficiality of this AI pause request is the lack of tangible actions taken thus far. None of the prominent figures behind the #AIPause initiative have committed to meaningful projects or pledged financial support to organizations that could fulfill their vague requests. Without funding, good intentions fall short of achieving sustainable change.
In the 30 days since the open letter was issued, there has been a noticeable surge in AI adoption and dialogue across various sectors. This trend does not surprise those who have been monitoring the societal impact of computation. I encourage you to stay informed, understand how your data is managed by corporations, and engage with the work of ethical advocates who are pushing for a more cautious approach to AI development.