Prince Harry, Meghan join call for ban on development of AI 'superintelligence'
Washington (AP): Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have joined prominent computer scientists, economists, artists, evangelical Christian leaders and American conservative commentators Steve Bannon and Glenn Beck to call for a ban on AI “superintelligence” that threatens humanity.
The letter, released Wednesday by a politically and geographically diverse group of public figures, is squarely aimed at tech giants like Google, OpenAI and Meta Platforms that are racing each other to build a form of artificial intelligence designed to surpass humans at many tasks.
The letter calls for a ban unless some conditions are met
The 30-word statement says: “We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in.”
In a preamble, the letter notes that AI tools may bring health and prosperity, but alongside those tools, "many leading AI companies have the stated goal of building superintelligence in the coming decade that can significantly outperform all humans on essentially all cognitive tasks. This has raised concerns, ranging from human economic obsolescence and disempowerment, losses of freedom, civil liberties, dignity, and control, to national security risks and even potential human extinction.”
Prince Harry added in a personal note that "the future of AI should serve humanity, not replace it. I believe the true test of progress will be not how fast we move, but how wisely we steer. There is no second chance.”
Signing alongside the Duke of Sussex was his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.
“This is not a ban or even a moratorium in the usual sense," wrote another signatory, Stuart Russell, an AI pioneer and computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's simply a proposal to require adequate safety measures for a technology that, according to its developers, has a significant chance to cause human extinction. Is that too much to ask?”
Also signing were AI pioneers Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton, co-winners of the Turing Award, computer science's top prize. Hinton also won a Nobel Prize in physics last year. Both have been vocal in bringing attention to the dangers of a technology they helped create.
But the list also has some surprises, including Bannon and Beck, in an attempt by the letter's organisers at the nonprofit Future of Life Institute to appeal to President Donald Trump's Make America Great Again movement even as Trump's White House staff has sought to reduce limits to AI development in the US.
Also on the list are Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak; British billionaire Richard Branson; the former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, who served under Republican and Democratic administrations; and Democratic foreign policy expert Susan Rice, who was national security adviser to President Barack Obama.
Former Irish President Mary Robinson and several British and European parliamentarians signed, as did actors Stephen Fry and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and musician will.i.am, who has otherwise embraced AI in music creation.
“Yeah, we want specific AI tools that can help cure diseases, strengthen national security, etc," wrote Gordon-Levitt, whose wife Tasha McCauley served on OpenAI's board of directors before the upheaval that led to CEO Sam Altman's temporary ouster in 2023. “But does AI also need to imitate humans, groom our kids, turn us all into slop junkies and make zillions of dollars serving ads? Most people don't want that.”
The letter is likely to provoke ongoing debates between the AI research community about the likelihood of superhuman AI, the technical paths to reach it and how dangerous it could be.
“In the past, it's mostly been the nerds versus the nerds,” said Max Tegmark, president of the Future of Life Institute and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “I feel what we're really seeing here is how the criticism has gone very mainstream.”
Confounding the broader debates is that the same companies that are striving toward what some call superintelligence and others call artificial general intelligence, or AGI, are also sometimes inflating the capabilities of their products, which can make them more marketable and have contributed to concerns about an AI bubble.
OpenAI was recently met with ridicule from mathematicians and AI scientists when its researcher claimed ChatGPT had figured out unsolved math problems - when what it really did was find and summarise what was already online.
“There's a ton of stuff that's overhyped and you need to be careful as an investor, but that doesn't change the fact that - zooming out - AI has gone much faster in the last four years than most people predicted,” Tegmark said.
Tegmark's group was also behind a March 2023 letter - still in the dawn of a commercial AI boom - that called on tech giants to pause the development of more powerful AI models temporarily.
None of the major AI companies heeded that call. And the 2023 letter's most prominent signatory, Elon Musk, was at the same time quietly founding his own AI startup to compete with those he wanted to take a 6-month pause.
Asked if he reached out to Musk again this time, Tegmark said he wrote to the CEOs of all major AI developers in the US but didn't expect them to sign.
“I really empathise for them, frankly, because they're so stuck in this race to the bottom that they just feel an irresistible pressure to keep going and not get overtaken by the other guy,” Tegmark said. “I think that's why it's so important to stigmatise the race to superintelligence, to the point where the US government just steps in.”
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Acts preceding actual partial penetration without ejaculation is attempt to rape: Chhattisgarh HC
Bilaspur (PTI): Noting that the act of the convict preceded the actual partial penetration but without ejaculation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reduced the seven-year sentence awarded by a trial court to a man in a 2004 rape case and convicted him for attempted rape instead.
Partially accepting the accused's appeal, the High Court has reduced the convict's sentence to three years and six months' rigorous imprisonment. A fine of Rs 200 was imposed.
"The proof of penetration, even if partial, is necessary to prove rape. The evidence available in the present case does not prove complete rape, but it does prove that the accused attempted rape. The evidence available in the present case does not prove complete rape, but it does prove that the accused attempted rape," Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas stated in the order on February 16.
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (Camp-Raipur), had convicted Vasudeo Gond on April 6, 2005, under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
He was also sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently.
Gond had lured the victim, a resident of Dhamtari district, to his house on May 21, 2004, under some pretext, and raped her.
He locked her in a room and tied her hands and feet. A case was registered at the Arjuni police station.
The prosecution examined 19 witnesses during the trial.
In her statement, the victim had claimed forced sexual intercourse by the accused. However, during cross-examination, she gave contradictory statements regarding penetration.
Medical examination revealed an intact hymen, but the possibility of partial penetration was raised. The FSL report also found human sperm in some samples.
The High Court noted that the victim's statement lacked clarity regarding penetration. The medical evidence also failed to establish complete penetration. Citing various Supreme Court decisions, the single-judge bench stated that proof of penetration, even if partial, is necessary to prove rape.
"The evidence of the victim is corroborated with the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution and law on the subject. It is quite vivid that an offence of attempt to commit rape is made out against the appellant, as there is partial penetration by the appellant.
"As such, the act of the appellant forcibly taking the victim inside the room, closing the doors with the motive of carnal knowledge, was the end of ‘preparation’ to commit the offence. His following action of stripping the victim and himself, and rubbing his genitals against those of the victims and partial penetration, which was indeed an endeavour to commit sexual intercourse," the HC stated.
It said the acts of the appellant were deliberately done with manifest intention to commit the offence aimed at and were reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offence.
"Since the acts of the appellant exceeded the stage beyond preparation and preceded the actual partial penetration but without ejaculation, the appellant is guilty of attempting to commit rape as punishable within the ambit and scope of Section 511 read with Section 375 IPC as it stood in force at the time of occurrence," the HC stated.
The HC convicted Gond under sections 376 (1) and 511 of the IPC, instead of section 376, and sentenced him to three years and six months' rigorous imprisonment. The six-month sentence under Section 342 was upheld. Both sentences will run concurrently.
The bench ordered that the sentence already undergone by the accused be set off.
It cancelled the bail of the accused and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months, failing which action for his arrest would be initiated.
