Humans Are a Bigger Existential Risk Than AI

Elon Musk continues to warn us of the potential dangers of AI, from debating the topic with Mark Zuckerberg to saying it’s more dangerous than North Korea. He’s called for regulating AI, just as we regulate other industries that can be dangerous to humans. However, Musk and the other AI debaters underestimate the biggest threat to humanity in the AI era: humans.

For the purposes of the current debate, there are three potential outcomes debaters of artificial intelligence propose:

  1. AI is the greatest invention in human history and could lead to prosperity for all.
  2. A malevolent AI could destroy humanity.
  3. An “unwitting” AI could destroy humanity.

There are few arguments in between worth considering. If the first possibility was not the ultimate benefit, then the development of AI wouldn’t be worth exploring given the ultimate risks (2, 3).

There’s certainly a non-zero chance that a malevolent AI destroys humanity if one were to develop; however, malevolence requires intent, which would require at least human level intelligence (artificial general intelligence, or AGI), and that is probably several decades away.

There’s also a non-zero chance that a benign AI destroys humanity because of some effort that conflicts with human survival. In other words, the AI destroys humanity as collateral damage relative to some other goal. We’ve seen early AI systems begin to act on their own in benign ways where humans were able to stop them. A more advanced AI with a survival instinct might be more difficult to stop.

There’s also a wild card relative to the first outcome that the two sides of the AI debate. On the road to scenario one, the positive outcome and probably the most likely outcome, humans will need to adapt to a new world where jobs are scarce or radically different than work we know it today. Humans will need to find new purpose outside of work, likely in the uniquely human capabilities of creativity, community, and empathy, the things that robots cannot authentically provide. This radical change will likely scare many. They may rebel with hate toward robots and the humans that embrace them. They may band behind leaders that promise to keep the world free of AI. This could leave us with a world looking more like the Walking Dead than utopia.

Since the advent of modern medicine, humans have been the most probable existential threat to humanity. The warning bells on AI are valid given the severity of the potential negative outcomes (even if unlikely), and some form of AI regulation makes sense, but it must be paired with plans to make sure we address the human element of the technology as well. We need to prepare humans for a post-work world in which different skills are valuable. We need to consider how to distribute the benefits of AI to the broader population via a basic income. We need to transform how people think about their purpose. These are the biggest problems we face as we prepare to enter the Automation Age, perhaps even bigger than the technical challenges of creating the AI that will take us there.

Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality, and augmented reality. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.

Machines Taking Jobs: Why This Time Is Different

Will AI and robotics revolutionize human labor or not? 

More than half of all US jobs could be disrupted by automation in the next several decades; at least that’s our opinion. About half the people we talk to disagree. Those that disagree think AI will open up new job opportunities by enhancing human abilities. A common element to their argument is that we’ve always had technical innovation and human work has evolved with it. A few examples would be the cotton gin, the printing press, and the automobile. All of these inventions threatened jobs of their era, but they ended up creating more jobs than they destroyed. So why is this time different?

Because, for the first time in history, we don’t need to rely on human intelligence to operate the machines of the future. The common denominator among those three examples and countless other technical innovations is that they were simply dumb tools. There was no on-board intelligence. Humans using those tools provided the intelligence layer. Humans were the brains of the cotton gins, printing presses, and automobiles. If the human operator saw or heard a problem, they fixed it and continued working. Today, the intelligence layer can be provided by computers through computer vision, natural language processing, machine learning, etc. Human intelligence is no longer required.

You might say that machines aren’t nearly as smart as humans, so they aren’t as capable as humans. But in reality, they don’t need to be. AI required to operate a machine only needs to have very limited domain knowledge, not human level intelligence (a.k.a. artificial general intelligence). Think about driving a car. You aren’t using 100% of your total intelligence to drive a car. A large portion is thinking about other things, like disagreeing with this article, singing along with the radio, and probably texting. An autonomous driving system only needs to be capable of processing image data, communicating with computers from other devices related to driving, like other vehicles, traffic signals, and maybe even the road itself, making dynamic calculations based on those data inputs and turning those calculations into actions performed by the vehicle. Any incremental intelligence not related to those core functions is irrelevant for an autonomous driving system.

The magnitude of the technological change is also significantly different in this current wave of advancements in AI and robotics. This wave is more akin to the advent of the farm when humans were still gatherers, or the advent of the factory when we were still farmers. Farms not only organized the production of food, but also encouraged the development of community and trade. Factories organized the production of all goods, encouraged the development of cities, and enabled our modern economic system by institutionalizing the trade of labor for wages. Automation will result in equivalent fundamental changes to the philosophy of production by taking it out of the hands of humans. This could result in societal changes of greater freedom of location and a basic income. In a way, the Automation Age may be an enhanced return to the hunter/gatherer period of humanity where basic needs were provided, originally by nature, in the future by machines. Except in the Automation Age, our purpose will be to explore what it means to be human instead of simply survive.

Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality, and augmented reality. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio. Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.

AirPods Are More Important Than The Apple Watch

At this point, it might not even be that crazy to say it, but we think AirPods are going to be a bigger product for Apple than the Watch. After using AirPods for the past month, the Loup Ventures team is addicted. The seamlessness in connecting and disconnecting with our phones and enabling Siri has meaningfully improved the way we work and consume content. AirPods are a classic example of Apple not doing something first, but doing it better. And they look cool. We think there are three reasons that AirPods are more important than the Apple Watch.

AI-First World
Google has been talking about designing products for an AI-first world for about a year now. In our view, an AI-first world is about more natural interfaces for our screen-less future. Speech is an important component of the next interface. Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant, and Cortana are making rapid improvements in terms of voice commands they understand and what they can help us with.

We view AirPods as a natural extension of Siri that will encourage people to rely more on the voice assistant. As voice assistants become capable of having deeper two-way conversations to convey more information to users, AirPods could replace a meaningful amount of interaction with the phone itself. By contrast, using Siri on the Apple Watch is less natural because it requires you to hold it up to your face. Additionally, the screen is so small that interaction with it and information conveyed by it is not that much richer than an AI voice-based interface.

Read More

Envisioning The Future Perfect

Disclaimer: We actively write about the themes in which we invest: artificial intelligence, robotics, virtual reality, and augmented reality. From time to time, we will write about companies that are in our portfolio.  Content on this site including opinions on specific themes in technology, market estimates, and estimates and commentary regarding publicly traded or private companies is not intended for use in making investment decisions. We hold no obligation to update any of our projections. We express no warranties about any estimates or opinions we make.

Seeing What We Say: Improving Siri And Alexa

We’ve been talking a lot about digital assistants lately. They were a big theme at CES and a recent survey of ours showed that US consumers view digital assistants as the fourth most frustrating tech product, behind devices, poor Internet service, and automated-telephone systems. Here’s a view into how we might be able to improve digital assistants in the future.

Humans are non-verbal communicators by nature. Almost 60% of human-to-human communication is through body language, but our current natural language interfaces only use voice. This means robot assistants miss 60% of the information we send to them. How often do you say thanks to Siri or Alexa after you get a right answer? How often do you curse at them when you get a wrong one? Then how often do you nod your head when Siri or Alexa give you a right answer? How often do you scrunch your face up in anger when they give you a wrong one?

Read More