Eleven Positions with Respect to AI

From a recent article, So What Should We Do About AI? Let’s Count The Ways by The Society Library, here are eleven distinct contemporary positions with respect to AI:

  1. We should advance the development of AI as much as possible, and/or make it as openly accessible as possible to both develop and use, with no restrictions.
  2. AI should continue to be developed naturally, meaning based on demand, actual use, market dynamics, and technological capabilities.
  3. We cannot allow unrestricted AI development, there needs to be some guidelines, restrictions, and/or regulations.
  4. We need to slow AI development beyond certain levels of capabilities to ensure its safety.
  5. We need to pause and AI development beyond certain levels of capabilities so we can find out how to ensure its safety.
  6. We don’t need to slow down or pause AI development, but we need to make sure AI safety and alignment capabilities keep up with development.
  7. There is no safe way to proceed with advanced AI development, therefore we should stop/ban all development beyond certain capabilities immediately
  8. We need to research more, learn more, engage with the public more, discuss more, and experiment more in order to figure out what to do about AI.
  9. We likely should pause, ban, control, or regulate [certain kinds of] AI, but it’s not likely, it’s impossible, and/or it’s too late; so we should prepare to mitigate the impact or prepare for the (potentially catastrophic) consequences.
  10. Without implying we should pause, ban, control, or regulate certain kinds of AI, we should prepare to integrate AI, because it will have an impact.
  11. We don’t know what’s the best course of action in regards to certain kinds of AI right now, and perhaps we never will — it’s difficult to know/predict what will happen or what to do; let’s just wait and see.

Of course, people can take many positions. For example, people may believe that we should both restrict and regulate AI after a pause or even after a ban. The reason why we disambiguate them is because the positions are meaningfully distinct in what they are calling for, and the argumentation and evidence which supports each position is also meaningfully distinct.

Hopefully this shared article is of some interest to the community.