REVIEW 6 cited by
Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development
read the original abstract
This paper examines the systemic risks posed by incremental advancements in artificial intelligence, developing the concept of `gradual disempowerment', in contrast to the abrupt takeover scenarios commonly discussed in AI safety. We analyze how even incremental improvements in AI capabilities can undermine human influence over large-scale systems that society depends on, including the economy, culture, and nation-states. As AI increasingly replaces human labor and cognition in these domains, it can weaken both explicit human control mechanisms (like voting and consumer choice) and the implicit alignments with human interests that often arise from societal systems' reliance on human participation to function. Furthermore, to the extent that these systems incentivise outcomes that do not line up with human preferences, AIs may optimize for those outcomes more aggressively. These effects may be mutually reinforcing across different domains: economic power shapes cultural narratives and political decisions, while cultural shifts alter economic and political behavior. We argue that this dynamic could lead to an effectively irreversible loss of human influence over crucial societal systems, precipitating an existential catastrophe through the permanent disempowerment of humanity. This suggests the need for both technical research and governance approaches that specifically address the risk of incremental erosion of human influence across interconnected societal systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants
A new benchmark finds low to moderate human agency support in 20 LLM assistants across six dimensions.
-
A dataset of rated conceptual arguments
A multi-dimensional expert-rated dataset of 951 conceptual-argument critiques shows LLM judge performance tracks general model capability and is little helped by reasoning modes.
-
AI Coaching for Accelerating Human Skill Development with Reinforcement Learning
A reinforcement learning framework for AI coaching, modeled as a non-cooperative game with causal skill models, shows improved human learning outcomes in a drone racing user study over baselines.
-
AI Loss of Control Incident Management: Response & Resilience
Presents a taxonomy for AI loss of control incident management that distinguishes extremely costly versus impossible regaining of control and accidental versus adversarial scenarios.
-
Prioritization of Risks from Artificial Intelligence: A Delphi Study of 272 International Experts
Delphi study of 272 experts finds 18 of 24 AI risks >10% likely to cause catastrophe by 2030 in business-as-usual, dropping to five under mitigations; users and public most vulnerable, developers and governments most ...
-
AI Researchers Must Help Lead Arms Control to Mitigate Military AI Risks
AI researchers must lead technical research in arms control to mitigate risks from military AI systems, drawing lessons from nuclear deterrence.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.