We have to manage the AI revolution - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号)。如果该手机号尚未注册,将自动创建 FT中文网账号。短信可能需要几分钟送达,验证码15分钟内有效,请耐心等待:
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议和隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
专栏 人工智能

We have to manage the AI revolution

There must be a global agreement on how the technology is controlled
00:00

{"text":[[{"start":5.6,"text":"In my last two columns, I argued that AI brings both opportunities and great dangers, some even existential. This transformative technology also threatens fundamental values, including personal and institutional accountability, the rule of law, democracy and even what it means to be human. Moreover, AI will be hard to regulate successfully, not only because its impact will be pervasive, but because progress is being driven by fierce competition among businesses and between the US and China."}],[{"start":null,"text":"

"}],[{"start":36.3,"text":"Remarkably, a recent post from Anthropic states that “we are delegating a growing share of AI development to AI systems themselves . . . Taken far enough, and given enough compute, that trend points to an AI system capable of . . . autonomously designing and developing its own successor.” The post then states that “if it were possible to . . . slow the development of this technology, to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications, we think that would likely be a good thing”. If even Anthropic, a leader in AI, is fearful of what lurks ahead, the fears of the rest of us, especially the young, can only be reinforced."}],[{"start":74.55,"text":"A big part of this politically salient concern is over the unemployment downside of the assumed productivity upside. But the speed and scale of the transformation AI will produce is unknown. My colleague John Burn-Murdoch noted recently, for example, that the increase in the supply of apps generated by AI has not led to a corresponding rise in their use. It has also generated a bigger jump in output in the early stages of software development than in final products. (See charts.)"}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":103.9,"text":"Again, an overview of the employment impact of AI issued by the International Labour Organization last year concluded that, globally, one in four workers is in an occupation with some exposure to generative AI. But, it also adds, just “3.3 per cent of global employment falls into the highest exposure category”. This does not seem a huge disruption. Moreover, in the past long lags have occurred between big innovations (electricity, for example) and higher productivity. As Paul Krugman writes, productivity growth has been lower during the digital era than it was after the second world war, a period without such breakthroughs."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":139.65,"text":"At the opposite end of the debate, Vinod Khosla, an experienced technology investor, states in the FT that “I’m certain AI will do 80 per cent of the economically valuable work humans do today, for 80 per cent of all jobs, faster than most believe. The question isn’t whether mass underemployment arrives by the next decade, but whether we have a coherent policy framework ready when it does.”"}],[{"start":164.6,"text":"Scepticism about the speed and scale of AI’s impact is justified. But Khosla is right: we need to prepare. Civilisation might not survive the existential shocks and economic disruptions that AI threatens. Uncertainty justifies readiness, not complacency."}],[{"start":181.79999999999998,"text":"So, what must readiness mean?"}],[{"start":184.24999999999997,"text":"First, we need to be prepared for a world in which machines will be taking big and in some cases — notably those of war and biological research — hugely consequential decisions. Ultimately, humans have to be accountable for those decisions, as programmers of AI, managers of the companies that sell it and decision makers in institutions that use it. Contrary to Argentine President Javier Milei’s view, AI must not run institutions without accountability of people. Owners, managers and officials should be liable to criminal and civil penalties for damage caused by AI."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":219.14999999999998,"text":"Second, we cannot rely on the moral sense and self-restraint of AI creators. We have already had terrible experience with social media. As I have noted: “Disseminating lies and frauds can be good business. Worse, disseminating posts that make people’s lives unbearable can be a good business . . . Artificial intelligence seems likely to worsen our collective plight by creating ‘perfect’ frauds of all kinds.” Anthropic may want to slow the pace. But it is in a race: it cannot control what its competitors do. We do not allow drugs companies to release medicines that have not gone through a suitable testing regime, for very good reason. Something similar should apply to new AI software. Moreover, in a competitive business, such regimes also have to apply globally."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":264.09999999999997,"text":"Third, this is why regimes cannot just be national. There must be a global agreement on how AI is to be tested and controlled and how liability for damage is to be imposed. The EU, it appears, is once again playing the role of regulator of first (or last) resort. This may not be such a bad thing. People around the world even trust the EU to be a better regulator than the US or China, probably because they believe it will be less captured by business interests or the desire to use AI as a weapon. But ideally, China and the US should be the keystones of any agreement. AI is too risky for everybody to develop unchecked."}],[{"start":null,"text":"
"}],[{"start":301.54999999999995,"text":"Last and particularly important, there is a good chance that AI will in time devastate the labour market, increase inequality and create an extraordinary concentration of economic — and so political — power in the hands of a tiny number of businesses and people. If we add this to the many other threats the technology poses, we confront an enormous risk of an autocratic overthrow of democracy. Indeed, it is already happening. Those who wish to see the survival of government of the people, for the people, by the people must try to stop this. The most obvious implication is that a good part of the increased income and wealth must be shared. The time to prepare for this is now. If we do not act, it will be far too late."}],[{"start":348.29999999999995,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1781738997_6825.mp3"}

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

AI监管不能照搬银行业模式

金融监管体系历经一个世纪的拼凑修补才逐渐成形。AI需要一套针对自身特点设计的监管机制。

FT社评:星链风波凸显欧洲亟须在太空领域迎头赶上

美国科技遥遥领先,但布鲁塞尔仍需建立自己的卫星网络并具备发射能力。

新加坡寻求追究相关公司责任,应对十年来最严重空气污染

政府威胁将对10家企业采取法律行动,称这些企业是邻国印尼山火的幕后推手,而山火造成的烟霾正在困扰新加坡。

美债收益率冲击下,欧洲必须自寻出路

埃里安:欧洲不能只盼着大西洋彼岸的借贷成本回落,它必须着手解决自身问题。

AI与通胀:央行行长该担忧到什么程度?

凯恩斯:这取决于一个价值万亿美元问题的答案:AI是否真能带来预期的生产力提升?

印度企业界的乐观情绪站得住脚吗?

印度企业界公开表达的乐观情绪,与家庭和投资者的焦虑情绪之间的落差日益明显。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×