(San Francisco) Artificial intelligence (AI) specialist Gary Marcus has spent the past few months alerting his peers, elected officials and the public to the risks of developing and blazing fast adoption of new tools for ‘IA. But the danger of human extinction is “exaggerated”, he told AFP in an interview in San Francisco.
“Personally, and for the moment, I am not very worried about this, because the scenarios are not very concrete”, explains this professor emeritus of the University of New York, who came to California for a conference.
“What worries me is that we’re building AI systems that we don’t control well,” he continues.
Gary Marcus designed his first AI program in high school – software to translate Latin into English – and after years of studying child psychology, he founded Geometric Intelligence, a “machine learning” company. machines) then acquired by Uber.
In March, he co-signed the letter from hundreds of experts asking for a six-month break from the development of ultra-powerful AI systems like those of the OpenAI start-up, the time to ensure that the programs already existing are “reliable, secure, transparent, fair […] and aligned” with human values.
But he did not sign the succinct statement from business leaders and experts that caused a stir this week.
Sam Altman, the boss of OpenAI, Geoffrey Hinton, a prominent former engineer from Google, Demis Hassabis, the leader of DeepMind (Google) and Kevin Scott, chief technology officer of Microsoft, in particular, call there to fight against “the risks of extinction” of humanity “linked to AI”.
“Accidental War”
The unprecedented success of ChatGPT, the OpenAI conversational robot capable of producing all kinds of texts on simple request in common language, has sparked a race for this so-called “generative” artificial intelligence between the technology giants, but also many warning and calls to regulate this area.
Including on the part of those who build these computer systems with a view to achieving a “general” AI, with cognitive capacities similar to those of humans.
“If you really think this poses an existential risk, why are you working on this? It’s a legitimate question,” notes Gary Marcus.
“The extinction of the human species… It’s quite complicated, in reality”, he ponders. “You can imagine all kinds of plagues, but people would survive. »
There are, however, realistic scenarios where the use of AI “can cause massive damage,” he points out.
“For example, people could successfully manipulate the markets. And maybe we would accuse the Russians of being responsible, and we would attack them when they had nothing to do with it and we could end up in an accidental, potentially nuclear war, ”he explains. .
“Authoritarianism”
In the shorter term, Gary Marcus is more concerned about democracy.
Because generative AI software produces fake photographs, and soon videos, more and more convincing, at little cost. The elections therefore risk, according to him, “being won by the people most gifted in spreading disinformation. Once elected, they can change the laws […] and impose authoritarianism”.
Above all, “democracy is based on access to the information necessary to make the right decisions. If no one knows what is true or not, it’s over.
The author of the book AI Reboot (Restart AI) does not however think that it is necessary to throw everything in this technology.
“There is a chance that we will one day use an AI that we have not yet invented, which will help us to make progress in science, in medicine, in the care of the elderly […] But for now, we are not ready. We need regulation, and to make the programs more reliable”.
During a hearing before a US parliamentary committee in May, he defended the creation of a national or international agency responsible for the governance of artificial intelligence.
A project also supported by Sam Altman, who has just returned from a European tour where he urged political leaders to find a “fair balance” between protection and innovation.
But be careful not to leave the power to companies, warns Gary Marcus: “These last few months have reminded us of the extent to which they are the ones who make the important decisions, without necessarily taking into account […] side effects”.