'Reducing the risk of extinction from apple pie should be a global priority, alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear wars.'
Had that been the one-line statement made public last Tuesday by dozens of leaders in the field of AI (artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence), it would have been bigger world news than it is now. Only it did not mention apple pie as a threat to the world, but AI. That made the statement a lot harder for journalists to interpret, because AI is a kind of water of technology: it can be used to give people drinks, or waterboard them. The line between those is clear: It's about who decides to stop drinking.
The fear is that in the case of AI, the software itself decides when something happens. Or stops. I once started blogging and nowadays write this newsletter because it forces me to keep up with my field and then organize my thoughts publicly. So herewith my immodest attempt to put the latest developments in AI into a broader perspective.
Who are these people?
First, that statement last Tuesday, issued by the Center for AI Safety (CAIS, pronounced Kees) whose mission is "to reduce the risks of artificial intelligence on a societal scale. We learned from the Watergate scandal that the first thing you do is follow the flow of money, so where does Kees get the money? The Open Philanthropy Foundation donated over $5 million and is in turn funded by former Wall Street Journal reporter Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz, one of the founders of Facebook. (You can guess for yourself whose piggy bank of that couple was turned over the most for this donation. Oh well, at least the money Facebook makes from selling out its users' privacy will be spent on something useful).
In Europe, tricky dossiers usually involve a covenant between government, industry and a party that policymakers describe as ''civil society'' in those kinds of papers that nobody reads. America is the land of the one-liner, so there they arrived at this chunky phrase: ''Reducing the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority, alongside other social-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear wars.''
And that was it, that's all there is in the 22-word statement. It led to rather vacuous media reports from which you can almost read the reporter's despair. Like "my goodness, do I now have to explain to what extent this statement is similar to Robert Oppenheimer's on the danger of nuclear weapons, or shall I just list the list of signatories? It became mostly the latter, of course, and you will recognize most of the names from previous newsletters. CNN bravely lists, "The statement was signed by prominent industry officials, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman; the so-called "godfather" of AI, Geoffrey Hinton; top executives and researchers at Google DeepMind and Anthropic; Kevin Scott, chief technology officer of Microsoft; Bruce Schneier, the pioneer of Internet security and cryptography; climate advocate Bill McKibben; and musician Grimes.
Who didn't sign?
The latter is kind of funny, because Grimes is the baby mama of as far as we know the youngest son of Elon Musk, who is even named X Æ A-Xii because it is the elven spelling of the term AI. (Read that last sentence again and realize that this is a defenseless child.) The very name Elon Musk was missing from the signatories. Other people who conspicuously did not sign the statement, and whose names it seems to me would have made sense if CNN had inquired why, are Jeff Bezos (founder and chairman of Amazon's Supervisory Board), Sundar Pichai (CEO of Alphabet, Google's parent company, man of this brilliant speech), Andreessen Horowitz (the leading investor in technology companies), Mark Zuckerberg (CEO Meta, formerly known as Facebook, buyer of former competitors like Instagram and Whatsapp) and Peter Thiel (financier of, among others, LinkedIn, Yelp, Facebook and Palantir and through his Founders Fund also Airbn and Space X). And further missing are just about all players in the technology field from India, South Korea, Japan and China.
All of these parties have the knowledge, clout and motivation to become a major player in the global market for AI applications. And they have not signed the no doubt well-intentioned declaration to take care that the world does not perish to AI. Of course, that doesn't mean that the chief bosses of the tech world will try to destroy the world with AI; after all, killing off the world's population would be bad for their quarterly numbers.
What about Bill Gates?
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates publicly hopes that Amazon and Google will lose out to AI. Furthermore, he has little influence on the public debate about AI; it is no coincidence that CNN did not even mention Gates in the list of signatories and even Elon Musk's ex did. I place little value on the predictions about technology from the man who, in his November 1995 book The Road Ahead, called the Internet not the future, but a dirt road compared to the information super highway he himself would build in the form of MSN.
It remains incomprehensible to me that Gates does not provide more analysis on the business aspects of technology, but continues to muse on the social implications. Because precisely as an entrepreneur, he remains, in my view, unparalleled. His vision is brilliant when measured over say 24 months, not 24 years.
Remember from Bill Gates especially these two achievements:
- IBM was looking for an operating system for their new product, the personal computer, in 1981; Gates had nothing on hand but bought the obscure Quick and Dirty Operating System (QDOS) from a small software maker for seventy-five thousand dollars, changed the name to MS-DOS (because the spotless IBM could not do anything with the word Dirty) and did not sell the software, but licensed it to IBM on a non-exclusive basis. That form of licensing was virtually unknown in the software world. Primarily on the basis of this one deal, Microsoft became the most valuable company and Gates the richest man in the world.
- In 1995, Microsoft was the most powerful company in the technology world and Gates the world's richest man. Only, the whole image of Microsoft and Gates was focused on a world where computers barely worked together, let alone communicated together or enabled transactions. While Jeff Bezos was a few miles away building Amazon into an e-commerce machine and would follow in Gates' footsteps as the world's richest man, Gates wrote a memo to the top of Microsoft that would become known as "the Internet tidal wave. In fact, Gates said, "I was wrong. We need to make all our products Internet-capable.' I had never seen a CEO confess his own mistakes in such a way and have the entire corporation turned around and focused, in such a short time. Admitting that he had overlooked the Internet struck me as great. (And I was relieved, because my brainchild was called Planet Internet and it's not good to wake up every day thinking the world's richest man is saying your product sucks.)
His book The Road Ahead would come out six months later and already be dated upon publication. It was especially odd because Gates had so strongly emphasized the importance of the Internet in his memo. The Internet, Gates orated in his book, was built on antiquated technology and therefore too limited to transmit information, communications and transactions over it on a large scale.
What happened next was as hilarious as it was symbolic, because his book required a second version as quickly as his software did: just a month after the book was published, Gates began work on a second version, which appeared in October 1996 and was no less than 20,000 words longer, just as his software counted more and more lines of code. In the second version of the book, Gates made the Internet much more central.
The only thing I liked about The Road Ahead was that Gates had written it with then Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold, a former world barbecue champion who had studied under Stephen Hawking. From Myhrvold, I would have liked to have read more.
Bill Gates is like a nerd version of Marco van Basten: a top player who is phenomenal as an analyst, but failing as a coach. I sincerely hope Bill Gates will write about applications of AI, about business models, opportunities and threats; about everything except what it will mean for society. And full disclosure: my opinion of Gates is independent of my own experiences with him and Microsoft in the browser war.
Why is AI so promising and so dangerous?
Far more important than Gates' opinion on AI, I found this article about an officer in the U.S. Air Force who gave a reflection on a drone that went wild because of AI and wanted to kill its own driver. The first gasp was that this actually happened, but apparently it was just a scenario being discussed in the U.S. military. Thank goodness, because it is the ultimate Terminator nightmare when the monopoly of violence falls to computers.
While a huge technological achievement, even Nvidia's new supercomputer, which I wrote about last week, will not lead to a mass breakthrough of AI applications. Such computers are so expensive and complex that only a small number of companies have the capabilities to use them properly. Of course, it is a huge revenue generator for Nvidia, as Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and Google will gladly stock this computer en masse, but it is precisely open source AI that seems to be the definitive breakthrough of AI.
These are not my words, but this is according to a leaked internal Google document. According to the leaked document, the open source AI community is so active and highly developed, that as soon as more accessible development capabilities emerge, both OpenAI and Google are hopeless. While OpenAI and Google use "proprietary" LLMs (Large Language Models), the models in open source are actually ready for public use. This makes the group of global developers larger than the OpenAI and Google staffs, the thinking goes.
Hooray for QLoRA?
And now it appears those cheaper tools will be available within a year! Because it seems to be possible to develop AI applications on some out of the box gaming PCs. LLMs used to develop generative AI applications can normally only run on enormously powerful computers. That is the reason for the explosive price increases of the makers of such devices such as Nvidia and Marvell, which I wrote about last week. As one reader sent, "QLoRA completely changes the landscape. You can use the same 8x80GB on a single 48GB card. From an $8x15K piece of kit to a souped-up PC.'
Translated into slightly more normal Dutch: the fact that you can cram 96 billion 4-bit weights into 48GB (which is huge) means that AI development is now available to hobbyists. What normally costs a ton of equipment can now be done for a few thousand Euros. For enthusiasts: here the scientific article. And here the tweet predicting that within a year these computers will be commonplace.
AI for Do-It-Yourselfers
The question is what applications will be built if hobbyists, enthusiasts and rogues will have the ability to create AI applications. And the follow-up question is how to monitor and regulate this, if at all possible.
Finally for this piece on AI:
- here is a link to a blog that tracks critical reflections on AI by Iris van Rooij of Radboud University. (via Future Affairs).
- Handy: create a PowerPoint presentation with ChatGPT
Notable links:
- Artifact, from the founders of Instagram, is a personal news reader. Just downloaded, but not yet tested, with the slogan: "Finally, an AI-driven news feed with you in control. Because no startup can do without the word AI in its slogan in 2023. I'd love to hear readers' opinions, anonymity guaranteed.
- Bold: a detailed forecast of the development of AI Singularity through 2029. Someone should check this annually for accuracy; I certainly forget.
- Meta (Facebook's) wants every employee assigned to a particular branch to show up at the office at least three days a week starting in September. Unfortunately, it is not clear what percentage of employees this will apply to. It remains to be seen whether this will cause many talented employees to leave, as as many as 150,000 jobs were lost in the US tech sector this year alone.
Event of the week: ATxSummit Singapore
A not-so-subtle humblebrag: the creator of your Sunday tech newsletter is participating Tuesday in a panel on Web 3.0 beautifully titled "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once. It's part of the ATxSummit in Singapore, where "governments, businesses and knowledge centers gather to discuss the role of technology in our shared digital future.
People often ask what working in Singapore is like, and I usually answer that question with "intense. Everyone is professional, from a receptionist to a minister, focused and dedicated. At the same time, I worry about whether people are relaxing enough and not working too hard. See above screenshot of an email about the preliminary online meeting on our panel, which consists of only four participants and yet went out to 27 people. You'd think this would lead to a huge bureaucracy, but officials, for example, answer email inquiries substantively within three business days. Sometimes I begrudge everyone in Singapore a daddy or mommy day a week.
Since I will have access to a make-up artist, something that has been at the top of my wish list for years, I expect there will be a livestream that I will share through my accounts on Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram. The panel will take place from 9 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. Dutch time. Advance warning: it's only for the connoisseur/lover of concepts like "participatory data" and "decentralization of identity.
Topping the Spotlight 9 inside: Nvidia
For years, the technology sector has been talking about a handful of dominant players: Alphabet (Google's parent company), Amazon, Apple, Facebook (now Meta) and Microsoft. Since this week, we can count Nvidia among them, which passed Meta in market value. For a while, Nvidia was even "a trillion dollar company," or worth more than a trillion: a thousand times a billion. (A billion in English is a billion and a trillion in English is a trillion. They are not the inventors of the useless inch and driving on the left for nothing).
Therefore, in my completely arbitrary survey of key economic indicators for the tech world, my Spotlight 9, I threw out the Dow Jones Index and replaced it with Nvidia. After all, for the overall market, the S&P 500 is already in the list, for crypto the tokens Bitcoin and Ethereum, and that leaves no fewer than six indicators of stock market sentiment for the tech sector.
But beware: anyone who buys a share of Nvidia now does so at a P/E ratio of over 200! Compare that to Apple, with a P/E ratio of 30, and then I dare say it is unrealistic to expect Nvidia to grow more than six times as fast as Apple. In other words, Nvidia stock is extremely expensive, regardless of that AI-driven demand for GPUs and the new Nvidia supercomputer.
Speaking of Apple, I wrote, to the annoyance of a number of Apple employees who I thought I could count among my circle of friends until that article, about the long-awaited Apple mixed reality headset, probably called the Apple Reality Pro. This device, the first all-new device since the Apple Watch in 2015, is expected to be unveiled at WWDC on Monday. If it really is something special, I will write an extra edition of this newsletter on Tuesday morning. If not, thanks for your interest and see you next week.