Is the Survival of the Species Truly at Risk from AGI?

**The Plausibility of AGI Existential Risks: Examining the Potential Consequences**

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) has become a subject of concern in recent years, with some claiming that it poses an existential risk to humanity. This idea has gained traction following the release of ChatGPT, a language model developed by OpenAI. But just how plausible are these existential risks, and what exactly do they entail?

To understand the concept of existential risks, we need to examine its colloquial and canonical definitions. Colloquially, it refers to the complete annihilation of the human species, leading to our extinction. This is what most people think of when they hear the term “existential risk.” However, the canonical definition is more controversial and is associated with a set of ideologies known as the TESCREAL bundle, consisting of transhumanism, Extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, and longtermism.

According to proponents of the TESCREAL ideologies, existential risk refers to anything that prevents us from realizing our long-term potential in the universe. This includes creating a new race of superior posthumans, colonizing the universe, building massive computer simulations filled with trillions of digital individuals experiencing surpassing bliss and delight, and generating astronomical amounts of value over millions, billions, and trillions of years. In essence, it envisions a techno-utopian world inhabited by digital posthumans.

However, this vision of utopia and the importance placed on avoiding existential risks may not resonate with everyone. The pursuit and realization of this utopia could have catastrophic consequences for a large portion of humanity. Take OpenAI as an example. Despite claiming to benefit all of humanity, the company has faced criticism for its unethical practices, including intellectual property theft and underpaying workers involved in curating training data for its language models.

Furthermore, the TESCREAL literature largely neglects perspectives from non-Western cultures and fails to consider who would be included or excluded from this utopian future. This raises questions about the values and potential inequalities within such a utopia, leaving many to wonder who would ultimately benefit from it.

Given these considerations, the concept of existential risks in the canonical sense appears to be flawed and potentially harmful. Rather than fixating on an utopian vision that may not be feasible or desirable for all, it is essential to prioritize ethical and inclusive approaches to artificial intelligence and AGI development. By focusing on creating technologies that benefit humanity as a whole, we can avoid the pitfalls associated with unrealistic utopias and ensure a more equitable future.

In conclusion, the plausibility of AGI existential risks should be critically examined. It is crucial to consider alternative perspectives and prioritize ethical practices in the development of AI and AGI. By doing so, we can mitigate potential harm and work towards a future that benefits all of humanity.

**Editor Notes**

The concept of existential risks associated with AGI is undoubtedly a thought-provoking topic. While some envision a utopian techno-future, it is essential to question the values and potential inequalities embedded within such a vision. Prioritizing inclusivity and ethical practices in AI development is paramount to ensure a more equitable future. However, it is important not to dismiss the potential risks entirely, as responsible AI governance is crucial. For more insights and updates on the latest advancements in AI, visit the GPT News Room at [https://gptnewsroom.com](https://gptnewsroom.com).

Source link

from GPT News Room https://ift.tt/4gfR6eu