Cheer up, there’s an 83 per cent chance we won’t be extinct in 100 years
Idea
Updated ,first published
Updated ,first published
How are you doing? Enjoying the winter sun? Feeling optimistic about the future? Just for one day, let me try to ruin your day. More precisely, Dr. Let me let Andrew Leigh spoil this. They say the devil works with empty hands, and that sums up Leigh at once.
Leigh is a former economics professor who for many years was the federal government’s assistant secretary of productivity, competition, charities, treasury and the kitchen sink.
If this tells you anything, it’s that he doesn’t have a real job. He is the only minister I know who is busy writing books and thinking about deep economic thoughts.
Although he was always among the smartest in the room, Leigh was not smart enough, or perhaps stupid enough, to join one of Labour’s factions. So once the factions finish dividing them, all the big business is taken. Someone as smart as Leigh can’t be ignored, so she picks up what’s left on the floor.
Unfortunately, Leigh’s musings boiled over when he delivered his annual report last month. Giblin Lesson (Giblin was probably Australia’s most famous economist). Economists are supposed to be happy, optimistic souls who advise us on how to become richer and consume more. They can deal with depressing issues like recessions, wars, revolutions, and pandemics, but they always find ways to bounce back and restart economic growth.
But that wasn’t good enough for Leigh. He decided to go all the way; all its gloom and doom. Why don’t we consider the extinction of the human race? We must, because if we leave this for too long, there will be nothing left to fix and no one left to fix it. That’s why we need to start fixing it as soon as possible.
I hope this cheered you up. Naturally, Leigh has many more questions to ask and answer. How great is the risk of human extinction?
The answer comes from an Australian philosopher Toby Ordnow at Oxford. Ord estimates that this chance could be as high as one in six (17 percent) over the next century. Leigh says this fits with other expert assessments.
So what are the things most likely to cause humanity to go extinct? Leigh says that in the past, extinctions were caused by natural events such as climate fluctuations or asteroid impacts, but today the most important risks are “anthropogenic”, that is, risks brought by our species itself.
This has been made clear in the last century by the risk posed by nuclear weapons, as well as by catastrophic climate change.
But Leigh and others think the biggest risks come from emerging technologies such as advanced artificial intelligence. The second biggest risk comes from synthetic biology.
As we seek to take greater advantage of artificial intelligence, we may unknowingly create technologies that threaten our future existence. You don’t have to intend to do harmful things to cause consequences that no one wants. If it takes us too long to realize what we’re doing, we’re in trouble.
Current artificial intelligence developments already show that forms of hacking are rewarded and behaviors that can be described as strategic. Where new systems gain access to codes, networks, financial accounts, laboratories, or military infrastructure, terrible things can follow.
“The concern isn’t just that a model will make a mistake. It’s that a highly skilled model can intelligently, consistently, persistently, and hard to reverse pursue the wrong target,” says Leigh.
As for synthetic biology, he says engineered pandemics pose a danger to our species because human design can combine features that nature often keeps separate. In principle, a pathogen can be modified to become more infectious, more virulent, more resistant to treatment, or more difficult to detect.
Rabies and septicemic plaguefor example, it shows almost total lethality in untreated cases. Biotechnology raises the possibility of combining these features by designing a pathogen with a high infection fatality rate and high transmissibility.
He says at least three paths to disaster can be identified. The first is an accident: a dangerous pathogen released from the laboratory. The second is state action: an offensive program internally justified as deterrence or strategic insurance. The third is non-state abuse: a terrorist group or doomsday cult seeking mass death.
Leigh worries that modern markets often reward talent more strongly than security. “We are often better at inventing the gun than the gun safe [to put them in]”pathogen rather than surveillance system, agent rather than compliance protocol,” he says.
So what can we do to reduce the likelihood of unexpected developments leading to disastrous consequences?
In the case of pseudo-AI, there may be value in limiting the model’s ability to continue iterating efforts to improve itself., We aim to expand research to include creating “wise AI,” improving testing, strengthening monitoring, and increasing international transparency through global AI security conferences.
Leigh says promising solutions for synthetic biology include screening orders involving DNA synthesis, improving the safety of dangerous pathogen research, tightening laboratory practices, monitoring wastewater and strengthening cooperation on biological weapons.
Are we likely to do most of these? Probably not. From where? Because although the risk of species extinction is real (though the reward for holding the winning ticket is completely non-existent), the chances of owning that ticket seem pretty small, especially with all the effort the to-do list above implies.
So why don’t we get on with the exciting work of making things bigger and better and take our chances at being completely destroyed?
Note: Please do not mention this unpleasant matter again.
Ross Gittins is economics editor.
Ross Gittins explains economics in a subscriber-only newsletter. Sign up to receive it every Tuesday evening.
