Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The subject 1) AI is 2) threatens human civilization, because of being 3)…
The subject 1) AI is 2) threatens human civilization, because of being 3) something that is non-human, but that can master the use of language.
-
... because of being, 3.1) something that controls the basis of human culture
-
-
... because of being 3.4) something that could convincingly imitate a human (such that another person won't be able tell if they are talking to a real person)
... because of being 3.5) achieve a form of false intimacy with people, which could be used to manipulate them.
[Additional reason, no present in Harari's argument, but possibly available for use in rebutting an inverse argument] ... because of being something that 3) cannot be effectively regulated.
... because of being 3) something that can use language to get around regulations by manipulating people
The subject 1) AI is 2) not something that threatens human civilization because of being 3) something that can bring great benefits to humanity AND can be controlled
because of being 3) something that can propel science and medicine to new frontiers AND something that can be controlled by commonsense regulations
... because of being 3.2) Something that can make peoples' lives easier and more productive AND something that can be controlled by commonsense regulations
... because of being 3) something that benefits human civilization that can be controlled by commonsense regulations.
The subject 1) AI, is something that should 2) be carefully regulated because of being 3) something that can potentially bring both great harm and great benefit to humans
-
... because of being 3) something that should be allowed, but within strict guardrail limitations
The subject, 1) AI, is something that 2) should not be carefully regulated, because of being 3) something beneficial that could be stifled in its growth and development by regulation
... because of being 3) a totally new technology that can be most effectively developed in a free and open environment, without many rules or much oversight.
... because of being 3) something the regulation of which would prevent benefits to humanity that outweigh its risks.
-
-
Is a rebuttal using an example (i.e., of something non-human that can master language but that IS NOT a threat to human civilization possible here?
Reframing the argument for different audiences using Stasis Theory: 1) Existence, 2) Definition, 3) Quality, or 4) Policy
Existence claims: AI that can master language exists/does not exist (could/could not exist, will/not exist
-
Quality claims: AI is harmful/beneficial, better/worse than, more useful/less useful than, etc.
Policy claims: AI should be regulated by laws like... AI should be banned... AI should be promoted...
-
For many people, the most alarming new technology today is unquestionable Artificial Intelligence. In its most well known for, AI bots like ChatGPT are capable of mimicking human language with such precision and skill that they can speak and write in a natural, skillful, even masterful way. And there is no question that a technology possising these very human-seeming abilities is something new, and somewhat unnerving.
Some observers, such as the philosopher Yuval Noah Harari, have even gone so far as to argue that the existence of a non-human entity possessing this level of language mastery is not just dangerous, but an extinction-level threat to humanity. Harari gives many reasons for this dire assessment, most coming down to the idea that language is culture -- and that culture outside of human hands is inherently catastrophic (at least for humans).
But is this really true? Isn't it possible that this undeniable power has the potential to benefit as well as harm, perhaps even in positive ways that outweigh its risks?
It's unquestionably true that AI could bring great benefits -- even Harari admits as much. AI has the power to revolutionize science and medicine, among other fields, and also simplify and improve the lives of people all over the world, in practically every walk of life.
Of course, these huge possible benefits of AI don't necessarily preclude the possibly catastrophic consequences Harari and others have pointed out. Fortunately, there is a reasonable middle way: With responsible and careful regulation, AI can be controlled. And if something can be controlled, it can benefit humanity without destroying it, no matter how potentially dangerous it might be in a totally unregulated form.
-