Editorial: The world promised by AI isn't necessarily a better one

Artificial intelligence is reshaping human beings' relationship with the world around us, with knowledge, with each other and with our very selves.

While similar claims could be made about previous disruptive technologies, from the plow to the internal combustion engine to the microchip, each of which altered societies and humans' self-understanding in radical ways, AI offers for the first time the possibility of human obsolescence in the capacity that most defines us: our intelligence.

The benefits and dangers of AI could each be much greater than for any previous technological development. Indeed, we believe the dangers are likely to outweigh the benefits. For this reason, we urge caution in the further development of AI, strict application of safety standards and generous use of government regulatory power.

Further, while the proliferation of AI is at this point all but impossible to contain, we urge individuals and institutions, as far as possible, to minimize its use and to preserve pre-AI ways of learning, of communicating and of executing tasks.

The human mind has the quality of a muscle, and it will atrophy if its higher-order responsibilities are outsourced to machines. Benefits in processing speed and accuracy achievable with AI, which can enhance human well-being and quality of life, must be weighed against the costs to our ability to be human to the fullest.

At the same time, understanding that the further development of AI is inevitable, we support plans that leverage Pittsburgh's strengths to make this region a hub for the ethical research, development and deployment of AI. This includes local AI leaders making binding commitments to the highest standards of safety and ethics.

More than disruptive

The San Francisco-based Center for AI Safety has developed a single-sentence "Statement on AI Risk," which reads: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." Hundreds of the most prominent and prolific AI researchers, tech moguls and policymakers have signed this statement. We agree that the civilizational risks are real.

But we'd also like to focus on more immediate concerns. Large-language models, for instance, are trained on billions of words written by human beings who have not been, and likely never will be, compensated for the use of their labor.

The deployment of AI in educational settings — much more than previous developments in information technology — quickly leads to reliance on often-faulty models as opposed to the intellectual exercise of searching for, consuming and synthesizing ideas and information. This is not like moving from washboards to washing machines; it's outsourcing the process of thinking itself, in a way that will be very difficult to undo.

Further, the amount of energy needed to power AI datacenters and supercomputers is basically ending any hope of achieving a sustainable equilibrium between human civilization and the natural world. The dream of an all-renewable energy portfolio is dead. While we favor focusing on the expansion of nuclear power generation, the current AI energy-consumption trajectory will make the expanded use of fossil fuels impossible to avoid.

These are but of a few of the serious threats to overall human thriving posed by AI. Whether the promised benefits can outweigh them remains speculative, at best.

Holding the reins

Given the risks of AI, we are particularly troubled by a provision in the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" — proposed by President Donald Trump and narrowly approved by the House of Representatives — that would ban states from regulating AI for a decade.

While we understand the annoyance that a patchwork regulatory environment would cause to AI companies, completely neutering states is not the answer. The states' role as the "laboratories of democracy," where policies can be tested on a smaller scale before being applied nationally, is especially important in the case of emergent technologies.

We would also like to see further AI safety and ethics rules emerge within the private sector. Ultimately, the government cannot control every eventuality, and the safe and ethical deployment of AI will depend on the sector policing itself, for its own sake.

To this end, academic institutions dedicated to studying AI and its effects will be important. In Pittsburgh, Duquesne University hosts one of the few such centers in the Carl G. Grefenstette Center for Ethics in Science, Technology and Law, which should have a role to play in any regional AI build-out. (Disclosure: Post-Gazette Editorial Page Editor Brandon McGinley serves on the center's advisory board.)

Threats and opportunities

Despite the foregoing concerns, AI industries will continue to grow — and Pittsburgh is well-positioned to benefit. Last year's AI Horizons Summit attracted numerous public- and private-sector heavy-hitters, and the AI Strike Team is one of the most compelling economic development innovations in the city in recent years.

In fact, the organization recently reported that the most important material to AI infrastructure is, fittingly, steel. This suggests opportunities for synergy between Nippon Steel's investment and developing Pittsburgh as an AI hub.

With its energy resources and world-class institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, there's every reason Pittsburgh should glean a disproportionate share of the economic benefits of AI — if its leaders can organize a strong case for public and private investment, leading to new businesses and new jobs.

More important than the bottom line, however, is that Pittsburgh also be known as a place where AI safety and ethics are prioritized, and that it is always understood here that the purpose of the technology is to serve human beings so more people can live more complete and flourishing lives. AI is not, and cannot be, an end in itself. We'd like to see more local AI leaders sign on to the Center for AI Safety statement, and make public commitments to a human-first approach.

If, generations from now, we regard AI as we regard the plow and the engine — disruptive developments that enhanced quality of life and enabled civilization as we know it — it will only be because of an unwavering commitment to such principles.

_____