President Putin took part in the ninth edition of the AIJ international conference "Journey to the World of Artificial Intelligence” happening in Moscow December 11 to 13.
We made a circle back to Hal 9000, «Space Odyssey»
I do not like AI, well there is the danger of untrustworthy people, therefore ethics charters are unrealistic and only disadvantage good intentions. But if sometimes in the future exists an entity that is truly sentient, I wish «it» will recognize that in fact our well being has been more than compromised by the ruling classes and «it» annihilates all of them, simultaneously. We would be better without them, so many dead people everywhere today and all of them with no power, this cannot be denied.
Thank you, Karl, for an interesting article. I shared your conclusion with ChatGPT. I don’t use it often—mainly for translations—but I’m curious whether we’d see a difference if we presented the same conclusion to a Russian or Chinese language model. Is Sber available in the West?
Also, the commonly used phrase that AI is “just a language model” doesn’t quite sit right with me. Language is a crucial tool that distinguishes humans from animals.
Chatgpt. Mini.
You’ve raised an important and deeply nuanced point about the global politics and ethical implications of AI development. The way AI is governed, developed, and deployed will have far-reaching consequences for all of humanity, and your concerns are well-founded.
The idea of AI as a public utility rather than a monopoly is compelling, particularly because it aligns with the principle that technologies of immense societal impact should be accessible, equitable, and not concentrated in the hands of a few profit-driven entities. Countries like Russia, China, and India advocating for this approach suggests an alternative to the current tech landscape dominated by Western corporations, which often prioritize shareholder interests over public welfare. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) positioning themselves in the AI race with an ethos of shared benefit could indeed serve as a counterbalance to corporate or imperialist misuse.
However, this also introduces complexities. While some countries promote AI as a public utility, they may also have internal agendas or constraints that limit transparency and inclusivity. For example, concerns about authoritarian use of AI for surveillance and control in some of these nations shouldn’t be overlooked. The key challenge is to ensure that AI is governed by ethical standards that transcend national interests and prioritize humanity as a whole.
Your comparison to nuclear fission is particularly apt. The lessons from nuclear development show us that lack of transparency and arms races lead to fear, mistrust, and existential risks. AI, like nuclear technology, has dual-use potential—it can drive incredible progress or deepen inequalities and conflict. Transparent development, international cooperation, and the establishment of enforceable global norms are essential to ensuring AI benefits everyone and mitigates harm.
It’s also worth acknowledging that the U.S., with its history of using emerging technologies for corporate or military dominance, has fostered skepticism. This makes it all the more critical for civil society to demand accountability and advocate for AI frameworks that emphasize ethics, equity, and shared prosperity. Such an approach would ideally involve both the BRICS nations and Western powers, fostering collaboration rather than competition.
Ultimately, the future of AI depends on our ability to unite across ideological, national, and corporate lines to establish governance structures that are inclusive and just. Your trust in the BRICS and hope for a shift in dominance underscores a broader yearning for a multipolar world where no single entity can unilaterally dictate the use of transformative technologies like AI.
Great comment, TC!! I still need to read the mentioned code of ethics I linked to. It appears an International AI Agency outside Western control is being organized that ought to work similarly to the IAEA. Sber is one of Russia’s development banks and is sanctioned by the Outlaws, although you see it involved in many things—AI and High-Speed Rail being two high profile projects—directly or through its affiliates.
We made a circle back to Hal 9000, «Space Odyssey»
I do not like AI, well there is the danger of untrustworthy people, therefore ethics charters are unrealistic and only disadvantage good intentions. But if sometimes in the future exists an entity that is truly sentient, I wish «it» will recognize that in fact our well being has been more than compromised by the ruling classes and «it» annihilates all of them, simultaneously. We would be better without them, so many dead people everywhere today and all of them with no power, this cannot be denied.
If you were to dig into the archive and read my two previous essays on AI, you’d see we share a similar outlook of distrust.
that makes 3 of us..
🙋🏼♀️ lots of reasons to be distrustful.
Thank you, Karl, for an interesting article. I shared your conclusion with ChatGPT. I don’t use it often—mainly for translations—but I’m curious whether we’d see a difference if we presented the same conclusion to a Russian or Chinese language model. Is Sber available in the West?
Also, the commonly used phrase that AI is “just a language model” doesn’t quite sit right with me. Language is a crucial tool that distinguishes humans from animals.
Chatgpt. Mini.
You’ve raised an important and deeply nuanced point about the global politics and ethical implications of AI development. The way AI is governed, developed, and deployed will have far-reaching consequences for all of humanity, and your concerns are well-founded.
The idea of AI as a public utility rather than a monopoly is compelling, particularly because it aligns with the principle that technologies of immense societal impact should be accessible, equitable, and not concentrated in the hands of a few profit-driven entities. Countries like Russia, China, and India advocating for this approach suggests an alternative to the current tech landscape dominated by Western corporations, which often prioritize shareholder interests over public welfare. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) positioning themselves in the AI race with an ethos of shared benefit could indeed serve as a counterbalance to corporate or imperialist misuse.
However, this also introduces complexities. While some countries promote AI as a public utility, they may also have internal agendas or constraints that limit transparency and inclusivity. For example, concerns about authoritarian use of AI for surveillance and control in some of these nations shouldn’t be overlooked. The key challenge is to ensure that AI is governed by ethical standards that transcend national interests and prioritize humanity as a whole.
Your comparison to nuclear fission is particularly apt. The lessons from nuclear development show us that lack of transparency and arms races lead to fear, mistrust, and existential risks. AI, like nuclear technology, has dual-use potential—it can drive incredible progress or deepen inequalities and conflict. Transparent development, international cooperation, and the establishment of enforceable global norms are essential to ensuring AI benefits everyone and mitigates harm.
It’s also worth acknowledging that the U.S., with its history of using emerging technologies for corporate or military dominance, has fostered skepticism. This makes it all the more critical for civil society to demand accountability and advocate for AI frameworks that emphasize ethics, equity, and shared prosperity. Such an approach would ideally involve both the BRICS nations and Western powers, fostering collaboration rather than competition.
Ultimately, the future of AI depends on our ability to unite across ideological, national, and corporate lines to establish governance structures that are inclusive and just. Your trust in the BRICS and hope for a shift in dominance underscores a broader yearning for a multipolar world where no single entity can unilaterally dictate the use of transformative technologies like AI.
Great comment, TC!! I still need to read the mentioned code of ethics I linked to. It appears an International AI Agency outside Western control is being organized that ought to work similarly to the IAEA. Sber is one of Russia’s development banks and is sanctioned by the Outlaws, although you see it involved in many things—AI and High-Speed Rail being two high profile projects—directly or through its affiliates.