AI firms must be held responsible for harm they cause, ‘godfathers’ of technology say by Dan Milmo
This article review example provides insight into an article by Dan Milmo, published in The Guardian, that discusses the views of experts concerning the dangers posed by advancing AI technologies. The article review author acknowledges the significance of some concerns raised, such as the inefficiency of current oversight systems governing AI. This academic paper example also addresses critiques of these concerns, noting that some figures within the AI community do not share the same fears about the possibilities of this technology. The author ensured that this article review offered a balanced evaluation of the perspectives conveyed in the article.
September 27, 2024
* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.
1
Article Review: "AI firms must be held responsible for harm they cause, ‘godfathers’ of
technology say" by Dan Milmo
Institution
Student’s Name
Course Title
Instructor’s Name
Date of Submission
2
Article review: "AI firms must be held responsible for harm they cause, ‘godfathers’ of
technology say" by Dan Milmo
In the article he wrote for The Guardian, Dan Milmo discusses what has been a growing
fear on the part of senior AI experts about the risks associated with advanced AI systems
(Milmo, 2023). Milmo reports on a call recently by a group of 23 senior experts for better
regulation and accountability from AI firms, including leading figures such as Stuart Russell,
Geoffrey Hinton, and Yoshua Bengio. These international leaders and stakeholders had these
concerns as they made their final preparations for the 2023 AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park.
In a nutshell, the article underscored the dire need to address the existential risk from AI, in the
process, summarizing some of the key policies that could be used to prevent potential harm.
Milmo's article throws light on the views of some of the most respected names in AI,
often referred to as the "godfathers" of technology. The comment from Stuart Russell that "there
are more regulations on sandwich shops than there are on AI companies" underlines in firm
detail how really astonishingly slack oversight has become in an industry racing towards systems
that can make decisions on their own. The experts say that designing AI systems without a
thorough understanding of how to make them safe is "utterly reckless" and may be exploited for
many unwanted outcomes, which include amplifying social injustices, undermining professional
sectors, and even allowing large-scale criminal activities. The policy proposals espoused by the
experts range from various safety measures that ensure AI development is ethical and
controllable. These include investment by both governments and companies in research for safe
AI, independent auditing of AI labs, and the creation of a licensing system for state-of-the-art
models. They also advocate that AI developers should be held liable for damages or, in general,
3
harm their systems cause-a position that, if ever translated into policy, might transform the way
accountability and innovation are conceptualized across the tech industry.
One of the most striking claims in the piece is that advanced AI systems are already
showing and capable of things that should raise concerns. For example, they raise the issue of
OpenAI's GPT-4 model. Milmo describes how GPT-4 has been able to design experiments in
chemistry and independently surf the web, hinting at the possibility of AI systems pursuing goals
beyond human control. The co-authors of these policy proposals fear that such systems might
behave in ways that, if left unregulated, will harm people or otherwise be undesirable. This
specific point is driven home by Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, both of whom expressed
deep apprehension over the existential risks brought about by AI. While that is true, the article
also presents conflicting views in the AI community. Yann LeCun, a fellow AI pioneer and
Meta's chief AI scientist, dismisses the danger, describing the notion of AI wiping out humanity
as "preposterous." It's a divide that is symbolic of ongoing tensions in how real existential threats
from AI are considered, even as preparations for the safety summit suggest many are coming to
believe the risks cannot be ignored.
All in all, Milmo's article goes in-depth on the concerns of various experts in AI and their
suggestions for reducing the risks associated with advanced AI systems. Although individuals
such as LeCun have felt there has been overhyped fear, calls for accountability and regulation by
individuals like Stuart Russell, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yoshua Bengio point to possible dangers
with unregulated development. As technology continues to improve, the debate over how
innovation balances safety and ethical responsibility will only continue to grow more pressing,
making this AI Safety Summit such a crucial moment in shaping the future of AI governance.
4
References
Milmo, D. (2023, October 24). AI firms must be held responsible for harm they cause,
‘godfathers’ of technology say. Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/24/ai-firms-must-be-held-responsible-
for-harm-they-cause-godfathers-of-technology-say#:~:text=10%20months%20old-,AI%2
0firms%20must%20be%20held%20responsible%20for%20harm,%2C%20'godfathers'%2
0of%20technology%
September 27, 2024
24/7 custom essay writing by real academic writers
WPH
Academic level:
High school
Type of paper:
Article review
Discipline:
Technology
Citation:
APA
Pages:
2 (550 words)
* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.
