There is a growing sentiment of discontent towards artificial intelligence (AI) among the public, with numerous concerns being voiced. Issues such as substandard outputs, unethical practices, bias, job displacement, rising energy costs, environmental harm, and exploitation are frequently mentioned. While individuals often face criticism for their personal use of AI, there has been little collective action directed at the corporations developing this technology, despite their evident aim to render human labor obsolete.
Executives in the AI sector may dispute this perspective, offering reassurances that AI will enhance human productivity and create new job opportunities. However, their true objective appears to be the development of systems that significantly outperform human capabilities, thereby leaving little room for competition.
OpenAI articulates its vision of artificial general intelligence (AGI) as “a highly autonomous system that excels in most economically valuable tasks.” Meanwhile, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, suggests that AI serves not as a replacement for specific jobs, but as a general labor substitute for humans.
The industry’s ultimate goal, referred to as AGI, can be seen as an all-encompassing machine designed to take over any task currently performed by humans, except in cases where human interaction is essential, physical presence is required, or legal protections are in place for certain jobs.
While one might be skeptical about the industry’s ability to achieve this ambitious goal, it is crucial to recognize that such advancements should not be permitted without proper oversight.
There is a pressing need to halt the development of frontier AI—specifically, efforts to create AGI—until there is widespread public support and scientific consensus ensuring that future advancements can be managed safely and responsibly.
Achieving this goal necessitates a collective effort to counter the interests of one of the wealthiest industries in history, which requires a shift in our perception of AI.
In various online spaces, particularly among left-leaning communities, many take pride in avoiding AI technologies, often making bold yet inaccurate assertions about their function and implications.
While it is understandable to be cautious about supporting these corporations with financial resources, data, or attention, utilizing increasingly essential technology does not equate to endorsing the industry behind it. This is akin to using social media platforms to advocate for stronger regulations while not endorsing the practices of their founders.
Moreover, individuals who embrace AI will likely gain advantages over those who do not, shaping the future according to their preferences while also deepening their understanding of the technology. Employers may choose to implement AI tools to replace human jobs, while proactive individuals, such as policy analysts, can employ AI to create valuable resources like comprehensive databases of labor-related decisions. If one is committed to their objectives, leveraging the best available tools is essential.
It is critical for those not actively engaging with the current and potential capabilities of AI to recognize that they risk losing influence in discussions surrounding its development. Sixty-nine members of Congress have already acknowledged terms like artificial superintelligence and AI existential risk. If only certain tech experts are willing to confront the rapid advancements in technology and the possible existential threats they pose, they will likely be the ones policymakers turn to for guidance.
The left’s disengagement from these discussions represents a significant missed opportunity, a sentiment echoed by those outside of leftist circles. Joshua Achiam, a former chief futurist at OpenAI, remarked that the left has neglected its role in the discourse surrounding AI, foreseeing it as a generational oversight. Dean Ball, who contributed to Trump’s AI action plan prior to joining OpenAI, concurred with this assessment.
Though one might be cautious about political opponents urging for greater engagement, they recognize the urgency of the situation as the technology evolves. This collective challenge calls for the left to step forward. Organizers are essential to instill a deeper understanding of power dynamics among those who may lack such awareness. Ambition and a belief in the possibility of better futures are crucial.
The trend of stigmatizing individual AI usage has inadvertently benefited the industry by dividing potential opponents and reinforcing our identities as consumers. Similar to how BP promoted the concept of a “carbon footprint” to shift climate change accountability to individuals, focusing on consumer responsibility detracts from our role as citizens. The pressing question becomes how to democratically govern AI technology in a manner that prioritizes the public good.
Currently, AI governance is largely controlled by unaccountable tech billionaires, influenced heavily by shareholders and political pressures. To create meaningful change in this unacceptable situation, a robust movement must be cultivated to challenge the richest industry in history.
Upon completing my book, Obsolete, I anticipated that while the task would be daunting, the potential for a historic mass movement was within reach, as everyone has a vested interest in the trajectory of AI development. This reality will become increasingly undeniable as the technology permeates more aspects of life.
Since that time, the risks associated with AI have escalated more rapidly than I had forecasted, yet public awareness has surged even more swiftly, fostering a sense of optimism. The narrative surrounding AI will not reach a positive conclusion without extensive and sustained public engagement, rather than being left solely to the small group of individuals racing to innovate our replacements.
The pivotal question remains whether we can effectively channel this growing concern into meaningful advocacy.
