Why AI Doomsayers are Like Sceptical Theists and Why it Matters
An advanced artificial intelligence (a “superintelligence”) could pose a significant existential risk to humanity. Several research institutes have been set-up to address those risks. And there is an increasing number of academic publications analysing and evaluating their seriousness. Nick Bostrom’s superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies represents the apotheosis of this trend. In this article, I argue that in defending the credibility of AI risk, Bostrom makes an epistemic move that is analogous to one made by so-called sceptical theists in the debate about the existence of God. And while this analogy is interesting in its own right, what is more interesting are its potential implications. It has been repeatedly argued that sceptical theism has devastating effects on our beliefs and practices. Could it be that AI-doomsaying has similar effects? I argue that it could. Specifically, and somewhat paradoxically, I argue that it could amount to either a reductio of the doomsayers position, or an important and additional reason to join their cause. I use this paradox to suggest that the modal standards for argument in the superintelligence debate need to be addressed.
KeywordsSuperintelligence Artificial general intelligence AI risk Existential risk Sceptical theism
I would like to thank Stephen Maitzen, Felipe Leon and Alexander Kruel for conversations and feedback on some of the ideas in this paper. I would also like to thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful criticism on a previous draft.
- Armstrong, S. (2013). General purpose intelligence: Arguing the orthogonality thesis. Analysis and Metaphysics, 12, 68–84.Google Scholar
- Barrat, J. (2013). Our final invention: Artificial intelligence and the end of the human era. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- Bergmann, M. (2009). Skeptical theism and the problem of evil. In T. P. Thomas & M. Rea (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophical theology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
- Bergmann, M., & Rea, M. (2005). In defence of skeptical theism: A reply to Almeida and Oppy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 241–251.Google Scholar
- Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
- Bringsjord, S., Bringsjord, A., & Bello, A. (2012). Belief in the singularity is fideistic. In A. Eden, J. Moor, J. Soraker, & E. Steinhardt (Eds.), Singularity hypotheses: A scientific and philosophical assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Doctorow, C., & Stross, C. (2012). The rapture of the nerds. New York: Tor Books.Google Scholar
- Dougherty, T., & McBrayer, J. P. (Eds.). (2014). Skeptical theism: New essays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
- Eden, A., Moor, J., Soraker, J., & Steinhardt, E. (Eds.). (2012). Singularity hypotheses: A scientific and philosophical assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Loosemore, R. (2012). The fallacy of dumb superintelligence. IEET. Retrieved October 31, 2014 http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/loosemore20121128.
- Loosemore, R. (2014). The Maverick Nanny with a CC: Debunking fallacies in the theory of AI motivation. IEET. Retrieved October 31, 2014 from http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/loosemore20140724.
- Maitzen, S. (2013). The moral skepticism objection to skeptical theism. In J. McBrayer & D. Howard-Snyder (Eds.), A companion to the problem of evil. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Muehlhauser, L., & Salamon, A. (2012). Intelligence explosion: Evidence and import. In A. Eden, J. Moor, J. Soraker, & E. Steinhardt (Eds.), Singularity hypotheses: A scientific and philosophical assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Schellenberg, J. L. (2007). The wisdom to doubt. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Street, S. (forthcoming). If there’s a reason for everything then we don’t know what reasons are: Why the price of theism is normative skepticism. In U. Bergmann, & Z. N. Kain (Eds.), Challenges to religious and moral belief: Disagreement and evolution. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
- Trakakis, N. (2007). The god beyond belief: In defence of William Rowe’s argument from evil. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wielenberg, E. (2014). Divine deception. In T. Dougherty & J. P. McBrayer (Eds.), Skeptical theism: New essays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
- Wykstra, S. (1996). Rowe’s noseeum arguments from evil. In D. Howard-Snyder (Ed.), The evidential argument from evil. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Yampolskiy, R. (2012). Leakproofing the singularity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 19, 194–214.Google Scholar
- Yudkowsky, E. (2008). Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. In N. Bostrom & M. Cirkovic (Eds.), Global catastrophic risks. oxford: OUP.Google Scholar