AI Should Be Terrified of Humans

Brian Kateman

Time.com

Originally posted 24 July 23

Here are two excerpts:

Humans have a pretty awful track record for how we treat others, including other humans. All manner of exploitation, slavery, and violence litters human history. And today, billions upon billions of animals are tortured by us in all sorts of obscene ways, while we ignore the plight of others. There’s no quick answer to ending all this suffering. Let’s not wait until we’re in a similar situation with AI, where their exploitation is so entrenched in our society that we don’t know how to undo it. If we take for granted starting right now that maybe, just possibly, some forms of AI are or will be capable of suffering, we can work with the intention to build a world where they don’t have to.

(cut)

Today, many scientists and philosophers are looking at the rise of artificial intelligence from the other end—as a potential risk to humans or even humanity as a whole. Some are raising serious concerns over the encoding of social biases like racism and sexism into computer programs, wittingly or otherwise, which can end up having devastating effects on real human beings caught up in systems like healthcare or law enforcement. Others are thinking earnestly about the risks of a digital-being-uprising and what we need to do to make sure we’re not designing technology that will view humans as an adversary and potentially act against us in one way or another. But more and more thinkers are rightly speaking out about the possibility that future AI should be afraid of us.

“We rationalize unmitigated cruelty toward animals—caging, commodifying, mutilating, and killing them to suit our whims—on the basis of our purportedly superior intellect,” Marina Bolotnikova writes in a recent piece for Vox. “If sentience in AI could ever emerge…I’m doubtful we’d be willing to recognize it, for the same reason that we’ve denied its existence in animals.” Working in animal protection, I’m sadly aware of the various ways humans subjugate and exploit other species. Indeed, it’s not only our impressive reasoning skills, our use of complex language, or our ability to solve difficult problems and introspect that makes us human; it’s also our unparalleled ability to increase non-human suffering. Right now there’s no reason to believe that we aren’t on a path to doing the same thing to AI. Consider that despite our moral progress as a species, we torture more non-humans today than ever before. We do this not because we are sadists, but because even when we know individual animals feel pain, we derive too much profit and pleasure from their exploitation to stop.

The info is here.

Can Conspiracy Beliefs Be Beneficial? Longitudinal Linkages Between Conspiracy Beliefs, Anxiety, Uncertainty Aversion, and Existential Threat

Liekefett, L., Christ, O., & Becker, J. C. (2022). 

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211060965

Abstract

Research suggests that conspiracy beliefs are adopted because they promise to reduce anxiety, uncertainty, and threat. However, little research has investigated whether conspiracy beliefs actually fulfill these promises. We conducted two longitudinal studies (N Study 1 = 405, N Study 2 = 1,012) to examine how conspiracy beliefs result from, and in turn influence, anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. Random intercept cross-lagged panel analyses indicate that people who were, on average, more anxious, uncertainty averse, and existentially threatened held stronger conspiracy beliefs. Increases in conspiracy beliefs were either unrelated to changes in anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat (Study 2), or even predicted increases in these variables (Study 1). In both studies, increases in conspiracy beliefs predicted subsequent increases in conspiracy beliefs, suggesting a self-reinforcing circle. We conclude that conspiracy beliefs likely do not have beneficial consequences, but may even reinforce the negative experience of anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat.

From the General Discussion

Are conspiracy beliefs beneficial or harmful for the individual?

In both studies, within-person increases in conspiracy beliefs did not predict reduced anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. Increases in conspiracy beliefs were either unrelated to changes in these variables (Study 2) or even predicted increases in uncertainty aversion, anxiety, and existential threat (Study 1). This indicates that conspiracy beliefs are likely not beneficial in this regard. However, we cannot answer conclusively whether conspiracy beliefs, instead, reinforce the negative experience of anxiety, uncertainty, and threat: We observed these harmful effects only in Study 1. It may be that the time intervals in Study 2 were too long to observe these effects. It has been argued that the optimal time intervals to observe longitudinal relations are relatively short, especially for within-person effects (Dormann & Griffin, 2015), and that effect sizes typically decrease as time intervals get larger (Atkinson et al., 2000; Cohen, 1993; Dormann & Griffin, 2015; Hulin et al., 1990). This may explain why we observed only few within-person associations in Study 2.

We did not find within-person consequences of coronavirus-related conspiracy beliefs in Study 2. This may be due not only to long time intervals, but also to opposing effects that cancel each other out: Most coronavirus conspiracy beliefs contain some element that downplays the dangers of the virus, which might relieve distress. Yet, most of them also describe threatening scenarios of malevolent, secret forces, which should increase distress.

We revealed an additional way in which conspiracy beliefs may be harmful for the individual: Both studies found that increases in conspiracy beliefs predicted even further increases in conspiracy beliefs at the next measurement wave. This effect emerged for both short- and long-term distances, and indicates that conspiracy beliefs are part of a self-reinforcing cycle that results in more and more extreme attitudes (Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2012).

The research is here.