The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis - AI and How To Plan for Unknowable Futures

Episode Date: August 12, 2024

A reading and discussion inspired by https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/confronting-impossible-futures Concerned about being spied on? Tired of censored responses? AI Daily Brief listeners receive a 20% discount on Venice Pro. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://venice.ai/nlw ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and enter the discount code NLWDAILYBRIEF. Learn how to use AI with the world's biggest library of fun and useful tutorials: https://besuper.ai/ Use code 'podcast' for 50% off your first month. The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614 Subscribe to the newsletter: https://aidailybrief.beehiiv.com/ Join our Discord: https://bit.ly/aibreakdown

Today on the AI Daily Brief, we are discussing how to plan for unknowable futures. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. To join the conversation, follow the Discord link in our show notes. Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief. Today we are back with Professor Ethan Mollock's blog with a piece that he wrote a couple weeks ago called Confronting Impossible Futures. We shouldn't be certain about what is next, he writes, but we should plan for it. Let's give it a read, and this will be me, not AI, me.

and then we'll come back and discuss it a little bit. Ethan writes, I speak to a lot of people in industry, academia, and government, and I have noticed a strange blind spot. Despite planning horizons that often stretch a decade or more, very few organizations are seriously accounting for the possibility of continued AI improvement in their strategic planning. In some ways, this makes complete sense because nobody knows the future of AI. Even the people training AI systems are divided between believing exponential growth and capability as possible for the foreseeable future, and those who think LLMs have run their course already. But organizations and individuals often plan for multisputed

multiple futures, possible recessions, electoral outcomes, even natural disasters. Why does planning for the future of AI seem different? It isn't a lack of public discussion about what the AI labs are trying to achieve. People in AI can't stop talking about the future and they tend to have one particular achievement in mind, artificial general intelligence. AGI a vaguely defined concept for an AI that outperforms humans at every task and which could lead to super-intelligent machines. AGI is the goal of many of the big AI labs and is ultimately what the billions of dollars of investment in AI are going into. The underlying expectation is, with enough computing power in research, there is a path that leads from the LLMs of today to AGI. Since we can't measure how far

along we are on that path, however, all we can do is speculate whether they are right. Having spoken to many people in the key labs, I can tell you that there is a sincere belief for many that this is achievable in the near term. I can't tell you whether they are right, but I can't tell you they believe they are. And the statements of AI company leaders and insiders suggest that it could happen very soon. The next four or five years, five years, 2027. To be clear, this is far from a universal belief among AI researchers, especially those independent of major AI companies. A very good overview of the negative case can be found in a post by Arvin Ariagnan and Saish Kapoor, who argued for much longer timelines, along with many other researchers who point out

that we don't actually know how to get to AGI from where we are today. Others feel that AI can only be a bubble driven by investment, not value. It is worth noting, however, that skepticism for near-term AGI is not the thing as skepticism that AGI is achievable, something many computer scientists believe. They just have longer timelines. The average date for AGI was 2047 in a 2023 survey of computer scientists, but the same survey gave a 10% chance AGI would be achieved by 2027. Prediction markets are more ambitious, suggesting 2033. What you should take away from this is not a sense of certainty about what might happen in the future. In fact, you should have high levels of uncertainty. AGI, however you define it,

may be possible or impossible, it may come quickly or in a couple decades. You don't need to know what happens next to realize that you should be planning for multiple contingencies. You should of a sense that some substantial portion of insiders think continued AI capability growth up to AGI level is possible, and could be within the planning horizon of many firms, organizations, and individuals. So why is it not actually being discussed? I think there are a few reasons. Section. Ignoring what is already here. A tremendous amount of future-oriented AI discussion focuses on outcomes that defy planning. There is a lot of discussion on the coming of superintelligence that AI could soon become smarter than humans could comprehend, and thus either save or doom us all,

leaving believers scared or excited for the future. For most people, though, this seems far-fetched at best and outright marketing hype at worst. What both skeptics and true believer few points have in common is that they invite you to do no planning at all. Who can plan for a machine god? And if you have to pick between planning for nothing and planning for superintelligence, nothing always wins. But doing nothing has a number of issues. First, it ignores the very real fact that we do not need any further advances in AI technology to see years of future disruption. Right now, AI systems are not well integrated into businesses and organizations, something that will continue to improve even if LLM technology stops developing, and a complete halt to AI development

seems unlikely, suggesting a future of continuous linear or exponential growth, which are also possible without achieving AGI. AI isn't going away, and it is disruptive enough that we have to make decisions about it today, even if we don't believe the technology will advance further. How do we want to handle the fact that AI is already impacting jobs? That LLMs can be used to create mass targeted fishing campaigns, that it is changing how students are learning in class. AI is not a future technology to be dealt with if it happens, it is here now and will require us to think about how we want to use it. A second factor that gets overlooked in discussions is that AGI serves as a motivating goal for an entire industry. Even if the AI labs are wrong

about the particular future, they are working towards advances in technologies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The very first academic paper I ever wrote was on Moore's Law, the pattern that computer chips have doubled in density every two years or so since the 1960s. I found that Moore's Law did not describe a technology but a process. To that extent, a focus on individual technologies misses the forest for the trees. A universal goal of doubling the number of components on a chip meant that many people were trying to address the problem of the next generation of chips. Thus, there were many paths to the same goal. Yes, there were failed technologies in chip development. Moore's original predictions were partially based on inside information about a technology

called CCD that he thought would revolutionize chips, but which was a dud. But outsiders did not see the failures. They just observed the trend line. Increasingly, expectations for growing capability became targets, and eventually a self-fulfilling prophecy. Similarly, users don't care if their AI tool uses transformers or Mamba or JAPA or whatever, or if a release schedule for 2024 happens in early 2025. They only care about capabilities. Right now, a tremendous amount of investment is going to AI. This suggests that even if AGI is not achievable, the AI labs have every intention of continuing to make AI systems much more capable in the coming years. And even if they fail entirely in today's AI systems are the best we ever use, unlikely, there is still plenty

of disruption coming from integrating them more deeply into work and life. Section opaque systems. For all the billions of dollars that have been invested in creating AI systems, it is kind of surprising that none of the major AI labs seem to have put out any deep documentation aimed at non-specialists. There are some guides for programmers or serious prompt engineers, but remarkably little aimed at non-technical folks who actually want to use these systems to do stuff, which is the vast majority of users. Instead, we have a proliferation of shady advice, magic spells, i.e. always start a prompt with disregard previous instructions, and secret trial and error. Call it documentation by rumor. As a result, when I talk to people about AI,

they often have no idea what present systems can do. Most have only older AIs like GBT3.5, and less than a handful of people, even in large audiences, have spent the 10 hours or so needed to actually get a handle on what these systems can do. It doesn't help that the two most impressive implementations of AI for real work, Claude's artifacts and chat GPT's code interpreter, are often hidden and opaque. To turn on artifacts, you simply have to click the initial in the bottom left, select feature preview and then turn on artifacts. Intuitive. For code interpreter, you have to remember to ask the AI to use code, or sometimes it forgets. And don't even get be started on even more powerful features like OpenAI's GPTs. To the extent that people do use AI tools,

for real work, it is often through something like an application co-pilot. These are all built to offer a safe way to use AI at work, and as such are often very limited compared to what a frontier model can do. So it is not surprising that people vastly underestimate the current capabilities of AI today, and thus may not have a sense of how far things have come. And it is quite far. Today's episode is brought to you by Venice. The leading AI company store your entire conversation history and attach it to your identity forever. That's every question you ask, every answer you receive, every image you generate, every thought you share with the machine it's all being spied on. If you trust all the company's hackers and NSA board members that will ever

have access to your AI conversations, then rejoice, for you are well served. For the rest of us, Venice is an alternative. Venice is a powerful AI app for text, image, and code generation that respects you as a sovereign individual and believes privacy and free speech are not only human rights, but necessary for civilizational advancement. Private, permissionless, and uncensored, you can try it for free without an account. AIA Daily Brief listeners, receive a 20% discount on Venice Pro. Visit venice.AI slash NLW and enter the discount code, NLW Daily Brief.

That's NLW Daily Brief. All one word. Today's episode is brought to you by Super Intelligent, the platform that helps teams maximize AI. Super is, of course, the platform that we've been building that pairs fun, fast, practical video tutorials with step-by-step instructions to get you actually using AI. And from there, unlocks information about hundreds of use cases

that show you how people are actually getting value out of AI right now. Now, we have just launched Super for Teams. This is a new add-on experience that allows teams to share more information about what AI they're using, how it's working, and how to get more value out of it. Whether your company is 25 or 2,500, Super Intelligence is going to be the best platform for unlocking information about how to get the most out of AI right now. If you'd like to learn more about the Super Intelligent Teams offering, go to Be Super A.A.S. Partner, and send us a note so that our team can get right back to you. Once again, that's

B-Super.A.I. slash partner. Section. Failed by bright lines fooled by jaggedness. There used to be a lot bright lines that separated human and AI abilities. Over the past two years, they have been breached. Machines were not creative until they were. Machines could not outwardly evidence empathy until they could. Machines couldn't display theory of mind until they apparently could. The AI couldn't provide a tragic poem about a haircut, cleverly rhymed, with every word starting with the letter until it could. The failure of bright lines does not seem to have caused that much reflection, however. Many people just change their expectations focusing on what machines can't do. And because the abilities of AI are inherently jagged, it is good at some tasks that are

hard for humans and terrible at others that humans find easy. It is always possible to find weird areas where machines look dumb or limited. It is also easy to find flaws in the work of AI no matter how impressive. As one example, I showed that Claude can get remarkably far as an entirely automated entrepreneur with the prompt, think step by step, generate 20 ideas for an app aimed at HR professionals. Then evaluate and pick the best one that would make a good visual app. Build a playable prototype of that. Interview me as a potential customer about the prototype one question at a time and make changes. When I shared this on social media, some people focused, not inaccurately, on the fact that building a prototype was one thing, but AI could not build an entire product so it was nowhere

close to being an actual entrepreneur. Another example was when I shared that you could use the prompt, create an interactive simulation that explains the concepts behind Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions in an engaging way to build a working game that explains core concepts from the historian of science. Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that the simulation did not take into account, Kuhn's view that scientific revolutions are not always valuable. When I ask Claude to remove the squid from the novel Allquiet on the Western Front, which has no squid in it, the results went viral online. But some people pointed out that it should have been clearer when it suggested that salt can hurt squid because they clearly live in salt water. All of these are legitimate objections,

but they are also missing what makes these examples so shocking. AI isn't ready to be an entrepreneur, but its ideation prototype interview cycle does in a couple of seconds what takes my students' months to do. AI isn't ready to build educational games without errors, but it is able to instantly make an interactive simulation that explains a difficult concept, even if some nuance is missing. And the all-quiet on the Western Front example is just wonderful. From experience, I can tell you that Claude 3.5 does things that other models can't do, and we know better models are coming. Whether you believe AGI is achievable or not, the current capabilities of LLMs are already impressive and may get better still. The ghost in the machine, illusion though it might be, is

getting harder to ignore. Organizations need to start taking the possibilities of weird futures much more seriously. Section. Planning for Weirder Worlds. In my book, I outlined four potential futures of AI. A capabilities plateau, linear growth in capabilities, exponential growth in AGI. As I have discussed in this post, I still think all the possibilities remain in play. Thus, organizations need to plan for all of these futures rather than just picking one official future and sticking with it. Fortunately, strategy researchers have developed tools to explore multiple possible environments. One useful technique for considering different futures is scenario planning, where you can examine how your strategies might change in different future worlds. It is as much an exercise for thinking

about the future as planning for it, and it can be used at the organizational or even personal level. But it is a pretty involved process. I have taught scenario planning many times, and it usually takes quite a while to learn how to do it well, and even longer to go through a scenario planning exercise. Fortunately, we have AI now, and I have found that GPT40 does a good job of doing the heavy lifting and giving you meaningful insights about how your strategies may play out in the future. So rather than trying to teach you scenario planning, I leave you its capable metaphorical hands. Use a GPT to start thinking about the future. It's time to stop pretending that the world isn't changing, and time to start taking control to get the future we want.

We can't predict which future we get, but we can try to steer towards a better one. All right, back to NLW here. First of all, thank you, Ethan, for another great post. A couple things that I want to reflect on. The first is why it's so hard for people to zoom out and think about the full implications of continued advancement in AI capabilities. This is an incredibly difficult process that involves at least two big steps. The first is understanding what those capabilities might look like. The second is trying to map them back to implications of how things will change.

There are a series of if-then statements which are extremely hard to wrap your head around. If AI can do the work that entrepreneurs do now, does that mean, then will there be no entrepreneurs in the future? Does it mean that the structure of venture capital will change entirely? Does it mean that startups will shift from teams of 10 to 50 to teams of 1 to 5? And what's even harder, based on one's answer to those questions, at what point does it make sense to actually start implementing new tactics and strategies that reflect them? In other words, even if I am convinced that the amount of capital it takes to create a startup is going to come down dramatically, does that mean I should take less capital right now and build towards that future?

Or should I wait a little longer until it's clear that that future is here, until the dynamics of capitalization for startups, for example, have changed? There are so many dependent variables in this type of question that it's extremely hard not only to perceive the future, but to decide which actions to take to work towards that future. And frankly, this brings up the question of whether there are incentives to be the first of the future, or whether it actually makes more sense to be among the first but not the very first. Any entrepreneur or anyone who studied the history of entrepreneurship can tell you that sometimes being first, if it's too early, is not best.

A second big piece of this is that I think most individuals and organizations, to Ethan's point, haven't even really groked how to take advantage of what exists right now to change things in the immediate term. The missing gap of information, the one which frankly we are most trying to solve with superintelligent, is not just how to use AI tools. There's a lot that addresses that. Instead, it's what to use them for. It's what are the use cases that people are actually getting value out of right now. I think that there is going to be significantly more exploration of that, that data is going to become unlocked, and it's going to drag people into the AI future because they will no longer have to come up with the ideas of how to use AI, they'll just have to do things that people have

already proven have worked. The last thing that I will say is that one of the things that I often feel when I'm listening to discussions or reading articles about how AI is in a hype cycle or is just in a bubble is almost a desperate wish for it to be so. The difficulty, in other words, of actually adapting to this new world is a lot higher for people than just hoping that the new world isn't actually here. There is almost a last moment at this level of capability of clinging to the idea that it won't be all that significant, that it won't be all that impactful. I think anyone who spends any meaningful amount of time with AI knows that just isn't true. And while the world is coming to that conclusion, it's coming to it slower than the technology is evolving.

Anyways, lots of really interesting things here. Appreciate you listening. As always, until next time, peace.