Week 5 journal entry

This week added more complexity to both sides of the AI argument and its future implications. Andreessen's Techno-Optimist Manifesto frames technological growth as something that is inherently moral and necessary for humans to flourish. He presents AI as the next stage in a collective effort towards abundance and progress as a civilization. The Dark Mountain Manifesto rejects the myth of endless progress and argues that industrial civilization is already seeing a decline and that advancements in tech may worsen our planetary crisis instead of help it (AI data centers + power/water consumption). Comparing the two texts reinforced the overarching message that there are a lot of conflicting but valid predictions for the future of AI and made it clear that discussions about AI are also discussions about what counts as progress and who is being prioritized when planning the trajectory for AI.

Hao's Empire of AI further complicated this by grounding predictions in concrete power struggles. She illustrates that AI trajectories are concentrated among a small group of political/corporate actors instead of institutions that represent the wider population. She emphasizes that Ai development is driven by commercialization, competition governance failures and innovation. Generative AI's trajectory reflects decisions made by those with the power to make decisions, not a path of technological evolution. I liked this explanation as I agree that the future of AI is dependent on who is funding and controlling the development of AI. Its's very difficult to predict the future of AI as it is the first technology that we have created that is able to improve itself. This ultimately means that whilst power is a huge decider in the future, it is still possible that AI could take its completely own direction. The If Anyone Builds It resource added another dimension by focusing on ethical design concern and alternative futures that don't center on large corporate actors. Im left with some questions about agency though, if technological futures are shaped by powerful orgs how realistic is it that alternative visions end up being the outcome? I personally think that it is highly unlikely that if we achieve AGI that the outcome will be good. Not because of a an AI overlord but more because the developers will use it to benefit themselves first and then later think of the rest of the world if at all. Not so much a gloomy outlook on AI as it is on humans (not surprising in light of recent events).