Between Macro Diagnosis and Micro Implementation: What About the Gap?
Last July, Yuval Noah Harari, one of the most widely read thinkers of our time, spoke about AI at a corporate event. His claim was a bold one: calling AI a tool is wrong. A tool cannot decide on its own, and it cannot invent anything new. The printing press could not choose what to print, and the bomb could not choose where to fall. Today's AI can. So it is not a tool but an agent. He went a step…
Yuval Noah Harari recently spoke at a corporate event about artificial intelligence (AI), claiming that it is not a tool, but an agent. Harari argued that AI has the ability to make decisions, invent new things, and run the world through its bureaucratic machinery. This claim resonates with many, as AI becomes increasingly integrated into our daily lives.
However, the problem lies in the gap between Harari's diagnosis of the issue and his proposed remedies. While he suggests that safety, alignment, and regulation are the solutions, the majority of those running AI agents are not directly involved in building or improving the technology. Instead, they simply use existing models for their own purposes, without addressing the underlying safety concerns.
Harari's diagnosis focuses on the entire world, while his remedies only address the companies that build AI models. In reality, AI is already taking over bureaucratic machinery, creating separate ledgers that do not recognize each other. This is a practical layer that Harari overlooks, focusing instead on the theoretical aspects of AI. The gap between the diagnosis and the remedies is significant and needs to be bridged to ensure the safe and effective implementation of AI in our society.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
