Swapping labels and signing honor-system pledges isn’t going to protect society from high-stakes AI risks. But are tech leaders aware?
AI to superintelligence has been an awry path, full of uncertainties and hidden risks that have instilled doubts in an optimistic audience of techies, investors, and tech leaders.
Will it or won’t it is the question users are now asking of AI. And the answer has been scattered in all directions. Recently, AI leaders from Musk to Amodei to Altman flagged the need for regulations and stringent governance practices around the tech, which Huang thought wasn’t the need of the hour.
But then Altman has now gone on to assert that AI falling short of delivering the desired outcomes is merely a stepping stone for what’s to come- and that is superintelligence.
AI, according to them, is only meant to be the foundation. The real goal, as they’ve been telling the crowd, is superintelligence (or that’s what they’re calling it).
The rebranding effort around AI is at full power- so much so that even Trump has now pivoted to calling the tech by its new name. The event that followed?
Tech leaders and policymakers recently gathered at the White House to unveil the “White House Accord on Super Intelligence”, rebranding advanced AI under a shiny new label while getting major tech CEOs to sign a joint safety commitment.
But can fancy new terminology and a handshake agreement fix AI’s growing PR problem?
At the surface level, it all seems like photo-ops and a marketing play to basically relay that – “AI has killer (and killing potential), but superintelligence doesn’t- and that’s our real goal.”
Here’s the catch: the accord is completely non-binding. It relies on voluntary promises from tech giants rather than enforceable government regulations.
