The recent AI summit at Bletchley Park, which coincided with the publication of the “Bletchley Declaration,” was a significant event involving 28 countries and the European Union. The declaration aims to enhance global cooperation on AI safety, encouraging transparency and accountability among developers of frontier AI technology and setting out a two-pronged agenda focusing on identifying risks and building cross-country policies to mitigate them.
Critics, however, question the practicality of such declarations, especially when it comes to current and more tangible risks associated with AI, such as algorithmic discrimination or monopolistic practices. Concerns have been raised that focusing too much on existential risks of AI might overshadow immediate societal risks. Some critics argue that major AI developers may use the fear of existential risks to propose approaches that could limit open-source AI development, which is seen as a counter to industry dominance. Vice President Kamala Harris and other leaders have spoken at the summit, urging a focus on present-day risks like algorithmic discrimination.
Regarding compliance by state actors and criminals with such declarations or guidelines, the conversation appears to be ongoing. The critics argue that future gatherings should include diverse voices from across society to ensure that the dominance of a few is not further entrenched, and that the AI development landscape remains competitive and open to new players. The current discussions also call for a more holistic, human-centered vision of AI systems, taking into account their impact on various aspects of society and the environment.
While the Bletchley Declaration represents a landmark effort towards global cooperation on AI safety, there is skepticism about the extent to which it will influence the practices of state actors and criminals, who may not follow the same ethical and safety standards outlined in the declaration.
#IAP #AI #JohnCEEllis
