Examining Popular Arguments Against AI Existential Risk: A Philosophical Analysis

TL;DR

This paper critically examines three common arguments against AI existential risk, reconstructing and evaluating them to foster a more balanced academic debate on AI safety and long-term impacts.

Contribution

It provides a systematic reconstruction and assessment of key arguments against AI existential risk, addressing a gap in rigorous academic analysis.

Findings

The Distraction Argument may oversimplify AI safety concerns.

The Argument from Human Frailty highlights limitations in human control over AI.

Checkpoints for Intervention offer potential strategies for AI safety.

Abstract

Concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential existential risks have garnered significant attention, with figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Dennis Hassabis advocating for robust safeguards against catastrophic outcomes. Prominent scholars, such as Nick Bostrom and Max Tegmark, have further advanced the discourse by exploring the long-term impacts of superintelligent AI. However, this existential risk narrative faces criticism, particularly in popular media, where scholars like Timnit Gebru, Melanie Mitchell, and Nick Clegg argue, among other things, that it distracts from pressing current issues. Despite extensive media coverage, skepticism toward the existential risk discourse has received limited rigorous treatment in academic literature. Addressing this imbalance, this paper reconstructs and evaluates three common arguments against the existential risk perspective: the Distraction Argument, the Argument from Human Frailty, and the Checkpoints for Intervention Argument. By systematically reconstructing and assessing these arguments, the paper aims to provide a foundation for more balanced academic discourse and further research on AI.