Reject the “Doomsday” Pipeline: Reactions to AI’s Global Takeover

In 2015, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman predicted that “AI will probably, most likely, sort of lead to the end of the world.” Years later, generative artificial intelligence emerged throughout the general public, and now, it has pervaded every crevice of our daily lives. The convenience, accessibility, and compliance of generative AI make it impossible to resist, and why wouldn’t one take the easy shortcut? What would be the point of putting your own time and effort into something when AI could simply, in seconds, do the work for you? 

Thus, AI has taken over the world by storm. With the rapid speed at which it is developing, it has become increasingly hard to manage. Generative AI has disrupted numerous industries, but it has especially caused a sudden and calamitous disruption in the chemistry of the education system.  

Elijah Colby, English teacher and co-leader of Stevenson’s AI committee, has a lot to say on the topic of artificial intelligence. 

First, he mentions the concept of ‘cognitive offloading’ – reducing the mental demand of an action through handing off tasks to AI. Colby explains how this is problematic, especially in the academic field: “it’s in these tasks that productive struggle happens, and that’s what the assignment or the class is meant to elicit in the first place.” When students – or even teachers – take the easy shortcut, it’s often an instinctive decision made without thinking about the consequences. But to increasingly rely on AI to do something for you, even if it seems inconsequential, is not only to lose the basic learned skills of the human experience but also to sell away your personal liberties to a machine for the sake of convenience. 

Amidst all the uncertainties of the new technology, one thing is for certain: artificial intelligence is here to stay. The conversation has long shifted from how to prevent students from using AI to figuring out how to adapt the way we teach and learn in order to utilize it in the interest of education. This is the big question that Colby and the AI committee faces: “how do we take advantage of the opportunities and efficiencies that AI maybe offers, but not lose the core or the soul of what we’re here to do?” 

“I think it’s unreasonable to ask high school kids with this incredible tool at their disposal simply not to use it in ways that will hurt them in the long run,” Colby argues, “because that’s a hard decision to make in the moment.” But if it’s so hard to enforce AI regulations, and cognitive offloading is something that people will turn to time and time again, then what could even be done to prevent this supposed eventual decay of our brains as we submit to AI with each absent-minded choice to reach for the technology?

There are simultaneously infinite and zero answers to such a question, depending on who you ask. The thing with artificial intelligence is, because the technology is so new, no one has any definite answers or an exact idea of what’s to come – not even the people in charge. It's hard to define and regulate technologies that are evolving faster than we as humans can manage, and that’s one way that artificial intelligence has already surpassed us. 

The issue doesn’t just lie within user error, and even the global leaders of AI know it; in a 3,800-word essay released last month, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei distinguishes the problems spurred by this “race to the bottom” when “commercial incentives” are present, and calls for a global slowdown on AI development. Several other executives at other high-profile companies have signed off on the effort. However, critics raise the question: is this executive handwringing merely a manipulative tactic to create governmental regulation under their own terms to weed out the smaller-scale competition, or is there genuine concern for the future of artificial intelligence development?

International regulation would mean a collaborative effort amongst nations. But is that realistic in a political climate where artificial intelligence has become the modern nuclear weapon? Colby expresses doubts in such an ask: “Government is slow-moving, simplistic, and responds to the winds of domestic politics in a way that doesn’t allow long-term planning,” he explains. “When you layer on the challenges of international political cooperation, I wouldn’t bet on it happening or working well.”

While I agree with the underlying sentiments of his claim, I think we will begin to see a gradual stir towards government regulation – specifically regulating development rather than public use – as Amodei’s ideas spread. Although his sincerity is questionable, his essay voices concerns that a lot of people are beginning to adopt. 

Regardless, people are beginning to wake up to the possibilities and the threats posed by the technology. However, I think what’s particularly important is to not succumb to the fearmongering of it all. Like all emerging technologies, the initial “doomsday” reaction is natural. As scary as it is, I have genuine faith in a world where human connection trumps transient technologies. It's crucial to stay informed on the state of the software and how the world around us reacts, but also to believe in and anticipate the far-reaching potential for AI to flourish and serve in a way that benefits the masses.