As our technological capabilities advance at an accelerating pace, so too does the pertinence of the hypothetical conundrum posed by super-intelligent artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for human freedom. Robert Sparrow examines these implications, drawing extensively from political philosophy and conceptions of agency, and provides an analysis of the societal implications of super-intelligence from a uniquely philosophical standpoint. The author adopts a nuanced perspective, proposing that even benevolent, friendly AI may threaten human freedom in its capability to dominate, consciously or not, its human counterparts. It is this paradox, situated within the broader philosophical discourse of freedom versus domination, that provides the nucleus of this analysis.
The research is grounded in the seminal work of philosopher Philip Pettit, particularly his doctrine of republican freedom. This doctrine centers on the belief that freedom is not merely the absence of interference (negative liberty) but is, critically, the absence of domination or the ability to interfere at will. Pettit famously encapsulated this concept in his metaphor of the “eyeball test,” positing that one is free only when they can look others in the eye without fear or subservience. As we explore the intersection of Pettit’s philosophy and the hypothetical reality of a super-intelligent AI, the profound significance of this test in determining the future of human freedom in a world shared with AI comes sharply into focus.
The “Friendly AI” Problem
Robert Sparrow makes an acute distinction between “friendly” AI and its potential to dominate humanity. The Friendly AI problem stems from the plausible notion that super-intelligent AI, regardless of its benevolence or adherence to human values, may still pose a significant threat to human freedom due to its inherent capacity for domination. A benevolent AI could feasibly operate in a dictatorial manner, modulating its interference in human life based on its determination of human interests. However, a critical distinction must be drawn: a benevolent dictator, even though acting in our interests, is still a dictator. As the author of the article pointedly remarks, to be “free” to act as one wishes only at the behest of another entity, even a well-meaning one, is not true freedom.
Herein lies the crux of the Friendly AI problem: the ability of an AI entity to act in accordance with human interests does not automatically guarantee human freedom. Freedom, as delineated by the republicanism of Pettit, requires resilience; it must not dissolve upon the whims of a more powerful entity. Thus, for the exercise of power by AI to be compatible with human freedom, it must be possible for humans to resist it. One might propose that a genuinely Friendly AI would solicit human input before interfering in our affairs, serving as an efficient executor of our will rather than as a prescriptive entity. Yet, this proposition does not satisfactorily resolve the core tension between AI’s power and freedom and our own. Ultimately, any freedom we might enjoy under a superintelligent AI would be contingent upon the AI’s will, a position which reveals the inherent vulnerability and potential for domination inherent in the Friendly AI concept.
Superintelligence
Bostrom’s notion of Superintelligence, as outlined by Sparrow, posits an AI entity capable of outperforming the best human brains in nearly every economically relevant field. However, the potential domination by such an entity forms the bedrock of the philosophical conflict between benevolence and domination. Drawing on Pettit’s theory of republicanism, it becomes clear that benevolence alone, even if perfectly calibrated to human interests, does not suffice to guarantee freedom. The very ability of a superintelligent AI to interfere unilaterally in human affairs, regardless of its intent, embodies the antithesis of Pettit’s non-domination principle. The analysis further draws attention to the paradox inherent in relying on an external, powerful entity for the regulation of our interests, effectively highlighting the existential risk associated with superintelligent AI. While a superintelligent AI may act in line with human interests, its potential for domination raises questions about the plausibility of achieving a truly “Friendly AI”, a challenge that resonates with the larger discourse on freedom and domination in philosophical studies.
Freedom, Status, and the ‘Eyeball Test’
The question of human freedom in the context of a superintelligent AI intersects with Pettit’s conceptualization of the ‘eyeball test’. In his philosophy, the notion of freedom pivots on the individual’s status within society – a status conferred when one can ‘look others in the eye without reason for fear or deference’. This perspective becomes especially poignant when viewed in the light of a superintelligent entity’s potential dominion. Under such circumstances, the capacity for humans to pass the ‘eyeball test’ could be seriously undermined, as the superintelligent AI, by virtue of its cognitive superiority, could induce both fear and deference. The state of being subjected to the AI’s superior will could consequently impair our ability to ‘look it in the eye’, thereby eroding the human status required for true freedom. This analysis deepens the philosophical understanding of freedom and its inextricable link with status, while simultaneously challenging the concept of a ‘Friendly AI’ from the perspective of republican theory.
The Negative Liberty Doctrine and Technocratic Framing of AI
Berlin’s bifurcation of liberty into negative and positive spheres finds particular resonance in the context of superintelligent AI, and as such, provides a useful framework for interpreting the dominance problem. From a negative liberty perspective – that is, the absence of coercion or interference – the advent of a superintelligent AI could be seen as promoting freedom. However, the technocratic framing of AI, often characterized by an overemphasis on instrumental logic and utility maximization, may inadvertently favor this negative liberty doctrine, potentially to the detriment of positive freedom. This is to say, while an AI’s superior decision-making capabilities could minimize human interference in various spheres of life, it could also inadvertently curtail positive freedom – the opportunity for self-realization and autonomy. As such, this underscores the importance of incorporating broader philosophical considerations into AI research and development, beyond the narrow confines of technocratic perspectives.
This fusion of philosophy and AI research necessitates the introduction of considerations beyond the merely technical and into the sphere of ethics and moral philosophy. The potential for domination by superintelligent AI systems underscores the need for research that specifically targets these concerns, particularly in relation to upholding principles of human dignity, autonomy, and positive freedom. However, achieving this requires a re-evaluation of our current paradigms of AI development that often valorize utility maximization and efficiency. Instead, an approach that truly appreciates the full depth of the challenge must also involve a careful examination of the philosophical underpinnings that inform the design and operation of AI systems. As such, future research in this arena ought to be a collaborative effort between philosophers, ethicists, AI researchers, and policymakers, aimed at defining a coherent set of values and ethical guidelines for the development and use of superintelligent AI.
Abstract
When asked about humanity’s future relationship with computers, Marvin Minsky famously replied “If we’re lucky, they might decide to keep us as pets”. A number of eminent authorities continue to argue that there is a real danger that “super-intelligent” machines will enslave—perhaps even destroy—humanity. One might think that it would swiftly follow that we should abandon the pursuit of AI. Instead, most of those who purport to be concerned about the existential threat posed by AI default to worrying about what they call the “Friendly AI problem”. Roughly speaking this is the question of how we might ensure that the AI that will develop from the first AI that we create will remain sympathetic to humanity and continue to serve, or at least take account of, our interests. In this paper I draw on the “neo-republican” philosophy of Philip Pettit to argue that solving the Friendly AI problem would not change the fact that the advent of super-intelligent AI would be disastrous for humanity by virtue of rendering us the slaves of machines. A key insight of the republican tradition is that freedom requires equality of a certain sort, which is clearly lacking between pets and their owners. Benevolence is not enough. As long as AI has the power to interfere in humanity’s choices, and the capacity to do so without reference to our interests, then it will dominate us and thereby render us unfree. The pets of kind owners are still pets, which is not a status which humanity should embrace. If we really think that there is a risk that research on AI will lead to the emergence of a superintelligence, then we need to think again about the wisdom of researching AI at all.
Friendly AI will still be our master. Or, why we should not want to be the pets of super-intelligent computers