Bojan Tunguz

What do AI doomers misunderstand?

My sense is that most of the prominent vocal AI doomers have very little to no technical background. That by itself does not disqualify them from speaking on the subject, often in interesting and eloquent ways, but in my experience without proper real world experience of actually building advanced technical tools, one does not have a good appreciation of how hard or feasible various AI systems may be. Hard things start seeming within reach, and intrinsic technical constraints are ignored.

You recently tweeted, "I believe that nuclear energy and synthetic biology are perfect examples of what *not* to do in terms of regulation as a response to hysterical doomism." How should those examples inform the way we approach AI regulation?

Those two examples are the most prominent recent ones of what moral panic as a response to a new advanced technology can yield. By now we should be aware that the most passionate and forceful voices are not necessarily the most correct or even the most virtuous. We need to avoid catastrophizing as the main mental model when dealing with a new technology. We should avoid making AI regulation a political football that can be cheaply exploited for partisan purposes. In the US, for instance, a broad consensus on how to deal with the social and economic disruption coming from the AI revolution should be sought.