regulated.
Many believe there should be
some governmental body to
establish local rules and norms.
>> I would for my new agency
that licenses and the effort
above certain capabilities.
>> Some lawmakers doubt they
have the knowledge to even
handle it.
>> The challenge is substantial.
I am not sure we respond quickly
and without -- with enough
expertise.
>> Gary Marcus emphasizes the
need for an international body.
>> We may need something global,
international and neutral.
>> While he supports regulation,
she warned it should not stump
the benefits of this new
technology.
>> It is important that any new
law does not stop the end from
happening.
-- The research from happening.
We do not want to slow it down.
>> Joining me now was Gary
Marcus, the co-author of
rebooting ai.
Thank you for being here.
Before we get into the dangers
of ai that you laid out for the
senate today, you have loved ai
since you were a little kid and
you see some potential for this
technology.
Make that case for ai first.
>> I love it as a cognitive
scientist.
It is a fascinating intellectual
question and there is a
potential to revolutionize
science.
Molecular biology has hundreds
of thousands of molecules in the
body.
No one human can understand
that.
Ai might revolutionize medicine,
might help us with climate
change.
There are a lot of practical
implications.
It is also cool, it is
interesting for anybody who has
grown up on science fiction
books.
I have always been interested
and I would like to see it
succeed.
>> As you mentioned, science
fiction has often pointed to
potential downsides.
He were warning about some of
those before the senate.
What are the major concerns you
have?
>> It is actually a long list.
I keep thinking about Donald
Rumsfeld quote about unknown
unknowns.
There are likely regimes where
by actors can use these tools.
We are going to enter an area
where nobody trusts anything.
Where everybody denies evidence
presented in court and says that
is made up 18 is not.
We will have checkboxes that
encourage people to commit
suicide.
We also have a potential for a
lot of cybercrime.
These new tools can be used to
manipulate people on the scale
we have not seen before.
Long-term, we do not know if
machines get out of control and
do things we do not want them to
do.
We are not prepared for any of
this.
>> Arthur current examples of ai
doing any of these things?
>> New start released a study
showing 40 or 50 different
websites generating news
automatically.
Generating news that turned out
to be flawed.
We have seen at least one case
of a suicide vest seems to be
associated with the chat bot.
It gave bad advice and did not
refer somebody to a
professional.
>> There is not a great track
record when it comes to the
government regulating
effectively technology, but you
were part of a group that was
arguing we have to do something
to try to marshal the
governmental powers to get
around this power.
What would you like to see done?
>> I argued in my tech talk a
few weeks ago that what we need
is an international ai agency
that brings together science,
government and the companies.
There was a pretty strong
agreement in the room.
At least we need to do that on a
national level.
Existing agencies are not up to
the task of keeping up with the
speed of ai, we need some kind
of central regulation around
this.
There are a lot of complicated
political problems, but there
was a strong bipartisan sense in
the room we do need to do
something along these lines.
We could have something like an
fda procedure for large models
that are deployed.
If you have something used by
1000 people, that is fine.
But if you want to really
something to millions of people,
you should do a safety analysis.
After the fact there should be
additional monitoring.
>> We have not really seen that
bus far.
-- Thus far.
>> That is right.
Chat gpt, I do not think anybody
was ready.
Technology is not that different
from a couple of years ago.
There is not really a standard
now about when is it ok to
release say to everybody?
>> Isn't the horse already out
of the barn in this situation?
Let's say you come up with
governance.
Won't there always still be
rogue actors who can use smaller
versions of this technology to
do the things you are most
worried about?
>> Some of the horses are out of
the barn and some are not.
We have publicly available
models, I believe we can build
new technologies where it will
be harder to mitigate some of
those risks.
There are other technologies
that have not been built yet,
like self-aware machines, that
maybe we do not want to build at
all.
This is a dress rehearsal for
more sophisticated technologies
than the ones we have now.
It is an opportunity to learn
how to close at least some barn
doors.
>> You and several other people
have been raising these warnings
of late.
Do you think as a society we are
going to hear these warnings in
time?
>> I was encouraged by what I
heard today in the senate.
I saw a lot of bipartisan
alignment and a lot of
recognition that we had not
handled the internet right.
I saw a lot of people with
intent collection will -- with
intellectual honesty.
>> Gary Marcus, host of the
podcast, humans versus machines,
thank you so much for being
here.
>> Thanks for having me.
♪♪