Anxiety over synthetic knowledge is great. Employers are afraid of their employment. Some researchers are concerned about the individual race.
According to some, businesses are speeding up the development of smart equipment without having however made sure they can hold them firmly rooted in human values. A health researcher lately left a leading AI development company, OpenAI, declaring that he was “pretty terrified” by the pace of development.
Artificial general intelligence ( AI ) that can think and learn the way people do, carry out tasks unprogrammed, and compete with or even surpass humans in terms of creativity, flexibility, and abstract reasoning is a top priority for the AI industry. It’s a theory that is the subject of more than one discussion.
Researchers are divided on whether AGI will ever be reached. Those who predict it will have a different opinion of how quickly. And there is a lot of disagreement regarding whether achieving it would be beneficial. When I consider where I’ll raise a future family or how much to save for retirement, the scholar who just left OpenAI said,” I can’t help but wonder: Will society also make it to that stage”?
Author Reid Hoffman asks us to take a break from watching the Terminator shows and look at the positive aspects while speaking in support of AGI. Hoffman is a heavy in Silicon Valley and a venture capitalist. He co-founded LinkedIn and sits on the boards of more than one Artificial company.
In a recently released text, Hoffman and co-author Greg Beato argue that the potential risks are far greater than the potential benefits, which can be attained through “iterative growth” and democratization. By that, they mean releasing AI advances slowly to a wide range of consumers, enabling understanding, and allowing defects to be discovered and fixed.
Hoffman describes himself as a “techno-humanist.” He disagrees with the Silicon Valley” solutionists,” who view AI as the solution to all problems and favor gung-ho, no-holds-barred development, nor with the “problemists,” who only support technology when it is proven to pose zero risks and favors stringent regulation or even bans.
Hoffman is more concerned with the problemists than the two. His criticism of the “precautionary rule” will appeal to British farmers who have gone through the GMO wars. In his discourse of attitudes toward technology in general, he uses example from a range of fields, including agriculture.
Hoffman doesn’t repeat,” no regulation, always.” He does, however, request that we be aware that development is itself a form of rules, while strict adherence to the precautionary principle you suppress innovations that may increase a technology’s safety.
He cites the first, illegal days of the car to illustrate the idea of innovation as regulation, when automakers introduced several safety features that we take for granted for economical reasons. Up until 1911, when Charles Kettering developed the electric start, many wrists, hands, and jaws were broken by individuals trying to crank-start vehicles.
It was made accessible on Cadillacs the following year, helping to establish the pleasure label’s image. It gradually developed into common products.
Even as the authors respond to AG I’s critics, they continue to make references to all the great things that technology will allow. They observe progress in people’s lives in occupations ranging from agriculture to manufacturing, health care to schooling.
What if every infant on earth had access to a professor who was as intelligent as Big Bird and as wise as Leonardo da Vinci?
Superagency is a well-informed, thought-provoking guide. The authors ‘ idea that gaining the technology into the hands of a sizable amount and of different people is particularly intriguing to me.
Using AI, which I’ve only just begun, has undoubtedly altered my outlook on things. In my research of Italian, AI devices like Gemini and Perplexity are incredibly helpful. My view of AI has changed from being entirely negative to fairly optimistic.
The problem Hoffman and Beato fail to address,” How critical is the risk of a Terminator situation,” is the reason I’m not even more optimistic. What’s the best way to take the risk if it isn’t minor? You have to know if creativity alone could maintain this risk at bay if you accept the innovation-is-regulation premise.
Hoffman does have a compelling response, I believe. I would have liked to know how he had shared it.
In one of the many marketing tidbits for the book, Yuval Noah Harari, the author of the book” Sapiens,” spoke for some.
The book” Superagency” offers society a interesting and insightful perspective on the era of AI. Despite my disagreement with some of its key points, I apologise for my inconsequential opinions. Learn it, and then make your own judgment.
Urban Lehner, a former long-time Asia journalist and director for the Wall Street Journal, is DTN/The Progressive Farmer’s editor emeritus.
This post, which was originally published on April 22 by the latter news business and is now being republished by Asia Times with authority, is entitled” Copyright 2025 DTN/The Progressive Farmer.” All trademarks are reserved. Follow , Urban Lehner , on , X @urbanize ,