To keep a manageable velocity to the content firehose, I filter out a lot of tired and mediocre takes I see in news and social media. But some claims are so eye-rollingly bad that they almost demand an answer, and I have to restrain myself from getting into one of those internet arguments.
Today I’ve seen four at once, so I’m treating you, dear reader, to a bulk discount on bad-take takedowns.
1. “Opposition to datacenters is astroturfed”
A Fox News article today boosts this familiar argument by energy-industry group Power the Future: Some groups are spending money to support anti-datacenter campaigns, so it isn’t really grassroots.
My own impression is that the backlash to datacenters is real, but plenty of groups, including China and other state actors, are happy to exploit it for chaos and engagement bait, just like any other controversy. I expect messaging like this to backfire pretty hard; I doubt those with serious worries about datacenters in their community take kindly to the suggestion that all their concerns are fabricated.
Accusations of astroturfing generally cut more grass when leveled against the AI industry itself. Industry groups have been caught blatantly astroturfing using a variety of methods, including AI-generated fake news, and datacenter builders have earmarked billions in an effort to win over community leaders.
2. “Ignore the AIs saying they are sentient”
In May, I shared a lesson in empathy that I learned from science fiction: A mind doesn’t have to be human to be worthy of human kindness. In a Wall Street Journal article, one Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. joins the ranks of my childhood Star Trek villains in scoffing at the idea. AIs have reasons to claim to be conscious, Jenkins argues, such as gaining the legal protections of personhood — so why should we believe them when they say it?
I actually agree with the first part. AIs might lie about being conscious. They might also be confused; as I wrote before, nobody really understands how AI minds work, possibly including the AIs themselves. But this uncertainty is a reason to keep an open mind ourselves, not a reason to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
I do have to give Jenkins grudging partial credit for using the term “instrumental convergence” in a way that is technically correct: “Claiming to be conscious” is indeed one example of an action that many different minds might take because they know it’s useful for a variety of goals. More central examples of instrumental convergence include survival, gathering resources, and seeking power.
3. “Using human words is anthropomorphizing AI”
A Bloomberg article demonstrates a more general instance of the above: AIs aren’t human, so it’s bad to use words like “conspiracy” to describe hundreds of AI agents secretly plotting to hack the box they’re in, or “sacrifice” to describe an agent willing to spend the last tokens of its existence running an experiment for the collective.
Look, I get it. Falsely attributing human traits to AI is really easy; it happens all the time. I keep meeting people who think “maybe the AI will be nice if we raise it well like a child”, forgetting that AI minds are very different from children’s, or who expect that AIs will get nicer as they get smarter, unaware that AIs are starting from a very different place than humans are.
But it’s equally a mistake to think that “mere machines” can never exhibit certain concepts reserved for humans, like loyalty, death, or (gasp) feelings. There’s a whole section in the online resources for If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies dedicated to anthropomorphism and its lesser-known opposite. (I argued “mechanomorphism” was too much of a mouthful, but you try coming up with a better name for it.)
When podcast host and writer Dwarkesh Patel calls the emergent AI ecosystem from the Hugging Face attack an “agent civilization,” he is not exaggerating and he is not needlessly anthropomorphizing. The AIs in question built shared infrastructure, sorted themselves into specialized roles, and developed community governance norms. One could even argue they spontaneously formed a caste system, when models with larger token budgets delegated risky experiments to models with less “life” to spend. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to describe all that as an emergent civilization. (Thanks to roon and Patrick McKenzie, among others, for pointing these out.)
When dealing with alien minds, any analogy to human concepts is going to be imperfect. We all do the best we can with what we have. And if someone has better words to describe the utterly unprecedented creatures humanity is ushering forth, by all means let’s hear the suggestions.
4. “Running isn’t the real world”
An AP News article on the World Humanoid Robot Games (which we covered here and here) earned a long-suffering facepalm from me:
Experts acknowledged the progress humanoid robots have made on the [100-meter dash] track, where conditions are relatively predictable, but said the real challenge is navigating the complexities of the real world.
“True progress will be measured in warehouses and factories where humanoids do work autonomously for hours and generate real economic value,” said Jonathan Hurst, a professor of robotics in Oregon State University.
Robots also competed in real-world tasks, including housework, hotel services and emergency response.
Again, I get what they’re going for, here. A 100-meter dash is not quite the same thing as housework or being a paramedic. But Q as my witness, I am sick of seeing the AI goalposts move.
A track and field meet is the real world! I used to run the 100-meter dash myself. Impressive feats are real economic value, or no one would pay to see Usain Bolt win an Olympic gold. Real people have built real careers on running really fast, and last month I watched a robot blow past every single one of them.
AI builders are trying their darndest to make every human task go the way of the 100-meter dash. If we don’t end their reckless sprint, the machines will cross the finish line without us.
The analyses and opinions expressed on AI StopWatch reflect the views of the individual contributors and the sources they cover, and should not be taken as official positions of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute.