According to The Decoder, Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker has publicly stated that the risk of AI destroying humanity is overly emphasized. In an open letter published in Quillette addressed to psychiatrist and technology blogger Scott Alexander, he explained his reasons.
The incident was triggered when Alexander issued a challenge to Pinker, calling for an open discussion on the survival risks posed by AI. Pinker declined, calling it merely a "competition to entertain the audience." He specifically disagreed with the apocalyptic scenario of a "paperclip maximizer," which assumes that AI would sacrifice all of humanity to produce more paperclips, pursuing a single goal so intensely that the system goes out of control. Pinker points out that this scenario conflates "intelligence" with "aggression."
The Greater Danger Lies in Reckless Announcements
Pinker has consistently held a positive view of AI in the past, but he admits he made two mistakes. First, he did not expect large language models to become so powerful. Second, he did not anticipate the extremely rapid pace at which AI companies have been shipping products. Ironicaly, many who are pushing forward this announcement competition belong to groups that have long warned about the risks.
There are also three other dangers that Pinker is genuinely concerned about: bio-terrorism, cyberattacks, and unrestricted AI agents. Pinker stated that emphasizing the end of the world does not help with these realistic threats. The effective approach is to actually implement careful security engineering, prioritize independent oversight, accountability systems, and human control.
