Hide table of contents
This is a linkpost for https://gradual-disempowerment.ai/

Full version on arXiv | X

Executive summary

AI risk scenarios usually portray a relatively sudden loss of human control to AIs, outmaneuvering individual humans and human institutions, due to a sudden increase in AI capabilities, or a coordinated betrayal. However, we argue that even an incremental increase in AI capabilities, without any coordinated power-seeking, poses a substantial risk of eventual human disempowerment. This loss of human influence will be centrally driven by having more competitive machine alternatives to humans in almost all societal functions, such as economic labor, decision making, artistic creation, and even companionship.

A gradual loss of control of our own civilization might sound implausible. Hasn't technological disruption usually improved aggregate human welfare? We argue that the alignment of societal systems with human interests has been stable only because of the necessity of human participation for thriving economies, states, and cultures. Once this human participation gets displaced by more competitive machine alternatives, our institutions' incentives for growth will be untethered from a need to ensure human flourishing. Decision-makers at all levels will soon face pressures to reduce human involvement across labor markets, governance structures, cultural production, and even social interactions. Those who resist these pressures will eventually be displaced by those who do not.

Still, wouldn't humans notice what's happening and coordinate to stop it? Not necessarily. What makes this transition particularly hard to resist is that pressures on each societal system bleed into the others. For example, we might attempt to use state power and cultural attitudes to preserve human economic power. However, the economic incentives for companies to replace humans with AI will also push them to influence states and culture to support this change, using their growing economic power to shape both policy and public opinion, which will in turn allow those companies to accrue even greater economic power.

Once AI has begun to displace humans, existing feedback mechanisms that encourage human influence and flourishing will begin to break down. For example, states funded mainly by taxes on AI profits instead of their citizens' labor will have little incentive to ensure citizens' representation. This could occur at the same time as AI provides states with unprecedented influence over human culture and behavior, which might make coordination amongst humans more difficult, thereby further reducing humans' ability to resist such pressures. We describe these and other mechanisms and feedback loops in more detail in this work.

Though we provide some proposals for slowing or averting this process, and survey related discussions, we emphasize that no one has a concrete plausible plan for stopping gradual human disempowerment and methods of aligning individual AI systems with their designers' intentions are not sufficient. Because this disempowerment would be global and permanent, and because human flourishing requires substantial resources in global terms, it could plausibly lead to human extinction or similar outcomes.



 

38

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Do you have any thoughts on the argument I recently gave that gradual and peaceful human disempowerment could be a good thing from an impartial ethical perspective?

Historically, it is common for groups to decline in relative power as a downstream consequence of economic growth and technological progress. As a chief example, the aristocracy declined in influence as a consequence of the industrial revolution. Yet this transformation is generally not considered a bad thing for two reasons. Firstly, since the world is not zero sum, individual aristocrats did not necessarily experience declining well-being despite the relative disempowerment of their class as a whole. Secondly, the world does not merely consist of aristocrats, but rather contains a multitude of moral patients whose agency deserves respect from the perspective of an impartial utilitarian. Specifically, non-aristocrats were largely made better off in light of industrial developments.

Applying this analogy to the present situation with AI, my argument is that even if AIs pursue separate goals from humans and increase in relative power over time, they will not necessarily make individual humans worse off, since the world is not zero sum. In other words, there is ample opportunity for peaceful and mutually beneficial trade with AIs that do not share our utility functions, which would make both humans and AIs better off. Moreover, AIs themselves may be moral patients whose agency should be given consideration. Just as most of us think it is good that human children are allowed to grow, develop into independent people, and pursue their own goals—as long as this is done peacefully and lawfully—agentic AIs should be allowed to do the same. There seems to be a credible possibility of a flourishing AI civilization in the future, even if humans are relatively disempowered, and this outcome could be worth pushing for.

From a preference utilitarian perspective, it is quite unclear that we should prioritize human welfare at all costs. The boundary between biological minds and silicon-based minds seems quite arbitrary from an impartial point of view, making it a fragile foundation for developing policy. There are much more plausible moral boundaries—such as the distinction between sentient minds and non-sentient minds—which do not cut cleanly between humans and AIs. Therefore, framing the discussion solely in terms of human disempowerment seems like a mistake to me.

there is ample opportunity for peaceful and mutually beneficial trade with AIs that do not share our utility functions

What would humans have to offer AIs for trade in this scenario, where there are "more competitive machine alternatives to humans in almost all societal functions"?

as long as this is done peacefully and lawfully

What do these words even mean in an ASI context? If humans are relatively disempowered, this would also presumably extend to the use of force and legal contexts.

What would humans have to offer AIs for trade in this scenario, where there are "more competitive machine alternatives to humans in almost all societal functions"?

In a lawful regime, humans would have the legal right to own property beyond just their own labor. This means they could possess assets—such as land, businesses, or financial investments—that they could trade with AIs in exchange for goods or services. This principle is similar to how retirees today can sustain themselves comfortably without working. Instead of relying on wages from labor, they live off savings, government welfare, or investments. Likewise, in a future where AIs play a dominant economic role, humans could maintain their well-being by leveraging their legally protected ownership of valuable assets.

What do these words even mean in an ASI context? If humans are relatively disempowered, this would also presumably extend to the use of force and legal contexts.

In the scenario I described, humanity's protection would be ensured through legal mechanisms designed to safeguard individual human autonomy and well-being, even in a world where AIs collectively surpass human capabilities. These legal structures could establish clear protections for humans, ensuring that their rights, freedoms, and control over their own property remain intact despite the overwhelming combined power of AI systems.

This concept is genuinely not unusual or unprecedented. Consider your current situation as an individual in society. Compared to the collective power of all other humans combined, you are extremely weak. If the rest of the world suddenly decided to harm you, they could easily overpower you—killing you or taking your possessions with little effort.

Yet, in practice, you likely do not live in constant fear of this possibility. The primary reason is that, despite being vastly outmatched in raw power, you are integrated into a legal and social framework that protects your rights. Society as a whole coordinates to maintain legal structures that safeguard individuals like you from harm. For instance, if you live in the United States, you are entitled to due process under the law, and you are protected from crimes like murder and theft by legal statutes that are actively enforced.

Similarly, even if AI systems collectively become more powerful than humans, they could be governed by collective legal mechanisms that ensure human safety and autonomy, just as current legal systems protect individuals from the vastly greater power of society-in-general.

I don't understand how you think these legal mechanisms would actually serve to bind superintelligent AIs. Or to put it another way, could chimpanzees or dolphins have established a legal mechanism that would have prevented human incursion into their habitat? If not, how is this hypothetical situation different?

Regarding the idea of trade — doesn't this basically assume that humans will get a return on capital that is at least as good as the AIs' return on capital? If not, wouldn't the AIs eventually end up owning all the capital? And wouldn't we expect superintelligent AIs to be better than humans at managing capital?

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by