In 2008 European physicists at CERN were on the verge of activating the Large Hadron Collider to great acclaim. The LHC held the promise of testing precise predictions of the most important current theories in physics, including finding the elusive Higgs Boson (which was indeed successfully confirmed in 2012). However, some opponents of CERN’s activation raised an almost laughable objection, encapsulated in a lawsuit against CERN from the German chemist Otto Rossler, that switching the LHC on might create a miniature black hole and destroy the Earth. In response, most physicists dismissed the chances of such a catastrophe as extremely unlikely, but none of them declared that it was utterly impossible. This raises an important practical and philosophical problem: how large does a probability of an activity destroying humanity need to be in order to outweigh any potential benefits of doing it? How do we even begin to weigh a plausible risk of destroying all humanity against other benefits?
Recently, prominent figures such as Sam Harris and Elon Musk have expressed similar concerns about the existential risks to humanity posed by the creation of artificial intelligence. This follows earlier work by Nick Bostrom (see for instance his ‘Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence’, 2004) and Eliezer Yudkowsky (for example, ‘Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk’, 2008). Let’s call this position ‘Anti-Natalism’ about artificial (general) intelligence since it proposes that the overall risks of creating AI outweigh its expected benefits, and so demands that AI shouldn’t be brought to birth.
Denne historien er fra August/September 2020-utgaven av Philosophy Now.
Start din 7-dagers gratis prøveperiode på Magzter GOLD for å få tilgang til tusenvis av utvalgte premiumhistorier og 9000+ magasiner og aviser.
Allerede abonnent ? Logg på
Denne historien er fra August/September 2020-utgaven av Philosophy Now.
Start din 7-dagers gratis prøveperiode på Magzter GOLD for å få tilgang til tusenvis av utvalgte premiumhistorier og 9000+ magasiner og aviser.
Allerede abonnent? Logg på
The Two Dennises
Hannah Mortimer observes a close encounter of the same kind.
Heraclitus (c.500 BC)
Harry Keith lets flow a stream of ideas about permanence and change.
Does the Cosmos Have a Purpose?
Raymond Tallis argues intently against universal intention.
Is Driving Fossil-Fuelled Cars Immoral?
Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.
Abelard & Carneades Yes & No
Frank Breslin says 'yes and no' to presenting both sides of an argument.
Frankl & Sartre in Search of Meaning
Georgia Arkell compares logotherapy and atheistic existentialism.
Luce Irigaray
Luce Irigaray, now ninety-two years old, was, among many other things, one of the most impactful feminists of the 1970s liberation movements - before she was marginalised, then ostracised, from the francophone intellectual sphere.
Significance
Ruben David Azevedo tells us why, in a limitless universe, we’re not insignificant.
The Present Is Not All There Is To Happiness
Rob Glacier says don’t just live in the now.
Philosophers Exploring The Good Life
Jim Mepham quests with philosophers to discover what makes a life good.