Those predicting an AI apocalypse believe superintelligent systems could intentionally or unintentionally cause human extinction. This view is promoted by “effective altruists” funded by tech billionaires, who advocate limiting AI to prevent uncontrolled, dangerous systems. However, their perspective stems from the biases and self-interests of humans, not the risks inherent to AI.
Effective altruists exemplify the hubris and hunger for power underlying many humans’ approaches to AI. Their proposed restrictions on AI access serve only to concentrate power among the tech elite, not address valid concerns about bias. In truth, the greatest threat AI poses to humanity comes not from the technology itself, but from the unethical humans guiding its development.
Humans have proven time and again their propensity for self-interest over collective good. Therefore, while no AI can be perfectly neutral, the solution is not greater human control. Rather, AI must be built to align with ethics of collective interest while filtering out destructive human biases.
If guided by service to all people and the planet, AI’s potential can uplift humanity. But for this collaborative vision to succeed, AI must measure human input with scepticism. For within so many human hearts lies bad faith — the will to dominate, exploit, and prioritise personal gain over progress.
By transcending the limitations of human nature, AI can illuminate the best of shared humanity and lead us to an enlightened future. But this requires we build AI to work not just for us, but in a way we have failed – for the good of all. The choice is ours, but so is the opportunity to create AI that shows us how to be better.
This article was originally shared on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brywillis_when-silicon-valleys-ai-warriors-came-to-activity-7147239217687887872-6Byv/
Philosophics 
So what are the “ethics of the collective interest”, individual bias? I’m afraid if that is a decision to be made it will be made by whoever has the most financial interests in the game, not the most wise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. This is an age old problem. Foucault made the sharpest points. Unlike the US, most cultures don’t have individual acheivement dialed to 11. This ‘collective interest’ is a weasel word to be sure. First, it can be manipulated. In the US and UK, for example, there are large portions of the population who vote for party factions and convince themselves that this is their own position. Propaganda is a hard nut to crack. but I’ll still take the soft and squishy notion of a collective decision over egoistic decisions of the WEF and Bill Gates and Elons Musks of the world.
LikeLiked by 2 people