A Right to Warn about Advanced Artificial Intelligence

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the concerns of current and former employees of frontier AI companies regarding the serious risks posed by AI technologies, such as the entrenchment of existing inequalities, manipulation and misinformation, and the potential loss of control of autonomous AI systems. The authors call upon advanced AI companies to commit to principles that would allow current and former employees to raise risk-related concerns without fear of retaliation.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Risks of AI Technologies

1. What are the serious risks posed by AI technologies according to the authors?

• The further entrenchment of existing inequalities
• Manipulation and misinformation
• The loss of control of autonomous AI systems potentially resulting in human extinction

2. Who has acknowledged these risks?

• AI companies themselves
• Governments across the world
• Other AI experts

3. Why do the authors believe that bespoke structures of corporate governance are not sufficient to address these risks? The authors believe that AI companies have strong financial incentives to avoid effective oversight, and that they cannot be relied upon to voluntarily share the non-public information they possess about the capabilities and limitations of their systems, the adequacy of their protective measures, and the risk levels of different kinds of harm.

[02] Calling for Transparency and Accountability

1. What principles do the authors call upon advanced AI companies to commit to?

• The company will not enter into or enforce any agreement that prohibits "disparagement" or criticism of the company for risk-related concerns, nor retaliate for risk-related criticism by hindering any vested economic benefit.
• The company will facilitate a verifiably anonymous process for current and former employees to raise risk-related concerns to the company's board, to regulators, and to an appropriate independent organization with relevant expertise.
• The company will support a culture of open criticism and allow its current and former employees to raise risk-related concerns about its technologies to the public, to the company's board, to regulators, or to an appropriate independent organization with relevant expertise, so long as trade secrets and other intellectual property interests are appropriately protected.
• The company will not retaliate against current and former employees who publicly share risk-related confidential information after other processes have failed.

2. Why do the authors believe that ordinary whistleblower protections are insufficient? The authors believe that ordinary whistleblower protections are insufficient because they focus on illegal activity, whereas many of the risks they are concerned about are not yet regulated.