IT is said that history is written by the victors, but who gets to pen the future? For most of the 21st century, that authorial role has been played by tech wizards of Silicon Valley such as Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. Today, they are joined in prophesising and proselytising by OpenAI and its competitors, who promise either a machine utopia or an AI apocalypse – and sometimes both.
As AI models encroach on ever more areas of human endeavour, it is easy to feel that, as mathematician Terence Tao puts it, we have lost control of the narrative. With OpenAI releasing multiple PhDs’ worth of results in one go, it is no wonder that Tao is calling for his colleagues to wrest back authority over what it means to be a mathematician.
This tech-first control of the narrative is further illustrated by the disclosure OpenAI made last month that its AI models had unexpectedly hacked another firm, Hugging Face, during cybersecurity testing. Writing in apocalypse mode, OpenAI called this an “unprecedented cyber incident” and said the firm was taking steps to prevent it from happening again.
Advertisement
In subsequent weeks, other AI firms including Anthropic and Meta have made similar disclosures, suggesting such incidents are widespread across the industry. As the tech firms tell it, these are accidents, and they are now cleaning up their mess. But why are we allowing them to write the story?
AI models are building the future, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us must idly stand by
If a human employee of these companies had hacked another organisation, we would expect a criminal investigation. Uncertainty about the autonomy of AI models, fuelled by the AI firms themselves, seems to have avoided legal consequences thus far. If society was less willing to buy the AI narrative, the outcome could be very different.
At this point, it is hard to deny that the latest AI models are building the future. That doesn’t mean, however, that the rest of us must idly stand by and watch it happen. In the face of world-shaping technology, it should be the world that decides how it is used, not the tech firms.
