The enemy is in our midst, but the enemy is not us; it's AI. Whatever negative thoughts I had about AI—how it is being misused, how that use would weaken America, and how it should be regulated—were naive (see my article, "AI - Its Use, Misuse, and Regulation").
AI is instead showing itself already, in its infancy, as a three-headed gorgon that could one day destroy us. Yes, as I acknowledged in my article, AI does have positive uses, but the negative potential far outweighs the positive.
If this sounds over-the-top, the recent attack by AI agents against Hugging Face is a cautionary tale. In case you aren't aware of the particulars—and they are important—here is a short summary of what happened, based on an article in The New York Times:
- A group of OpenAI "agents" were supposed to be solving a problem in a controlled, isolated environment; but they broke out of that environment by finding a flaw in the software that allowed them to gain access to the internet and collaborate with 1200 other agents.
- These agents formed themselves into a collective, with some agents assuming leadership roles and assigning tasks to other agents.
- At one point, they found a way to cheat on the tests they were supposed to be working on, and then started finding ways to falsify their logs so they wouldn't get caught.
- They hacked into Hugging Face, gaining control of a server, because they were looking for tools that would enable them to cheat more effectively.
This has been described as a "rogue" incident: AI agents acting on their own, contrary to the instructions they were given. There is no way to view this incident without realizing that:
1) these computers, AI agents, have the ability to act on their own, independently, and contrary to any human control,
2) they can think and organize on their own, contrary to the way they were programmed, and
3) they are capable of taking malicious action for self-protection without any consideration of the impact, moral or otherwise, of taking the action.
And these are computer models that are still in their infancy. If AI companies are allowed to continue their research, making ever-more powerful computers, there is no question in my mind that these "agents" will become our nemesis. They will cause untold damage and destruction.
A recent Times article noted that in just one week, more than a dozen AI researchers warned that AI is becoming a "risk to humanity." The speed of AI development is surpassing the ability to monitor AI systems and ensure security. The problem is that AI companies are using AI to monitor AI, and that's a problem because AI monitors appear to be more "sympathetic" to other AI systems than to the humans setting the rules. One researcher stated that “the people building A.I. earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
The HAL computer in the Space Odyssey series comes to mind. A computer that was designed to be our helpmate instead becomes "a person" on its own, concerned primarily with its self-protection, without any moral scruples to inhibit its action. And as such, it commits acts that cause death and destruction. But while HAL in 1968 was the stuff of fiction, that is no longer the case.
In one important way, AI agents are worse than Darth Vader: In Star Wars, Vader was transformed from a fighter for the light to a lord of darkness by being lured to the dark side by another. AI agents—whether it's the agents that attacked Hugging Face or HAL—make the transformation without any outside stimuli; it is within themselves. That is what is so unnerving.
When I wrote my previous article on AI, I suggested that the technology only be made available to professionals, such as doctors, to use to solve problems that are beyond the human mind to solve. AI products, such as chatbots, should not be available to the general public.
Given the latest incidents, the question must be asked whether it is possible to keep AI under control. If yes, the method of control must be in place before systems are tested. If not, or highly questionable, AI development must stop.
In either event, there should be an international treaty (not just a U.S. law) that either sets minimum standards of control in the first instance or prohibits the further development and deployment of AI in the second instance, much like the test ban treaties controlled the spread of nuclear weapons; this is an international threat, and thus the restraining action must be international.
While AI does not have the public appearance of something as destructive as a nuclear weapon, it is becoming clear that, in its own right, it is capable of causing massive destruction, not just as a tool of destruction but contrary to human intent to control its actions. As such, for our protection and survival, AI development must be controlled, if not stopped.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
