Weekly Column: If AI Could End the World, Why Are We Racing?

In this week’s column, California Sports Lawyer® CEO and Managing Attorney Jeremy M. Evans examines warnings that AI could pose a catastrophic threat and argues that human leadership, independent oversight, and evidence should guide innovation as companies race to build more capable systems. .

Once humans stop thinking, strategizing, and innovating, that is where any society will fail regardless of whether AI is the catalyst.

You can read the full column below. (Past columns can be found, here).

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is a part of our daily lives. Even if you despise AI, it has an impact on your life either directly through use of applications like streaming music or television choices or indirectly when others you interact with have used a generative AI platform to make a decision or to act as a thought partner. Either way, humans have interacted with AI and its use and acceptance are increasing.

More recently, there has been some backlash against the exponential growth of AI companies and the increasing use of generative AI by humans. There have been calls to slow the development of advanced AI systems and to regulate them. Safety concerns have also been raised, not to mention issues with the creative nature of being human and how AI has the potential to take away human innovation.

While some of the concerns about AI are valid, an Armageddon approach suggesting that AI will bring an end to the world is not the answer. Cruise ship designer John McNeece once famously said, “There is a problem trying to figure out what people want by canvassing them. I mean, if Henry Ford canvassed people on whether or not he should build a motor car, they’d probably tell him what they really wanted was a faster horse.” A logical, systematic approach, with an eye towards the historical record, lessons learned, and future opportunities is more beneficial. Often with innovation, it takes time for regulation and evidence from experiences to develop a pathway to sustainability with technology.

Recent warnings about advanced AI concern the possibility of losing human control over increasingly capable systems, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Those claims deserve to be tested against evidence and concrete safeguards, even if one disagrees with a doomsday conclusion.

The warnings and credible risk of AI are not necessarily the same. A warning with AI is that it can give incorrect answers. The incorrect answer warning becomes a credible risk when it is left unchecked. There is however a three-pronged approach to using AI, which includes (1) checking your inputs (prompts), (2) checking your outputs (results), and (3) buying the paid version of the generative AI platform you are using. In other words, you must have human involvement and oversight in AI use and policy.

There are also concerns with hallucinations, the gap between those who use AI and those who do not, and the fear that humans will begin to rely on AI to the point where people are no longer creative or want to work or possibly engage with people. One major concern with Elon Musk’s projection that AI will make work optional with universal high income is that work is good for mankind. Work is what brings value, change, and experience. Work is a distinguishing factor, it provides merit, and honestly it keeps people busy and occupied in the healthy sense of avoiding the devil’s playground of an idle workshop. This is where author Geoff Woods’s principle that AI should be a thought partner is important, while distinguishing humans as the thought leader.

Once humans stop thinking, strategizing, and innovating, that is where any society will fail regardless of whether AI is the catalyst. In other words, humans must balance the business incentives of creating AI with policies and best practices. Global competition for AI is growing and the argument is that the country that develops the best AI will control the future economy. Profit also means good governance in planning to make the product or service, earn revenue, and spend or invest that profit for future growth. Companies still compete for customers, capital, and strategic advantage even while their leaders raise safety concerns. The question is whether voluntary safeguards can withstand that pressure.

Safety measures include independent oversight of AI, human control and a bill of rights protecting and ensuring human leadership, accountability to platforms for use of intellectual property, and personal responsibility of humans. Independent oversight should specify what is tested, what results must be disclosed, and when deployment must pause. If policies can be made to address the aforementioned, AI will have a significant and successful future. If policies and best practices are ignored, we are in for a future we would have created ourselves by a lack of policy creation and enforcement. We keep building AI because it can make work more efficient, create new jobs and opportunities, and give people more time to think, strategize, and innovate, but that future requires sound policy, responsible practices, and human control.

~

About Jeremy M. Evans:

Jeremy M. Evans is the CEO and Managing Attorney at California Sports Lawyer®, representing companies, creators, and talent in dealmaking matters across entertainment, media, sports, and intellectual property. An award-winning attorney and industry leader, Evans is based in Los Angeles and Newport Beach, California. He can be reached at Jeremy@CSLlegal.com. www.CSLlegal.com.