How AI Apocalypse Fears Allow Companies to Avoid Present-Day Responsibility

Concerns over catastrophic AI futures are causing tech companies to ignore current responsibilities, according to the academic Tobias Osborne.

Tobias Osborne, a professor of theoretical physics at Leibniz Universität Hannover, insists that focusing on notions of superintelligent AI and the theoretical 'singularity' diverts attention away from immediate issues that the technology is already causing.

While experts and policymakers engage in discussions about the potential for AI to endanger human survival, Osborne notes that the real damage is already occurring in measurable ways today.

"There's no apocalypse on the horizon," Osborne argues. "The dystopian outcomes are already unfolding now."

The Impact of Doomsday AI Narratives on Regulation

Discussions about AI are increasingly dominated by dire warnings—of machines overtaking humanity, spiraling out of control, or leading to societal downfall. These ideas have gained traction due to influential voices in research, technology, and government publications.

Osborne highlighted to Business Insider how this focus impacts regulatory practices and corporate accountability.

"By casting themselves as protectors against global collapse, AI companies are perceived more like national security entities than commercial businesses," he explained. "This perception diminishes their accountability and hinders standard regulatory practices."

As a result, companies are allowed to ignore their negative impacts while enjoying the benefits of regulatory leniency, confidentiality, and even government incentives.

He pointed out overlooked dangers such as mental health impacts attributed to chatbots, along with significant issues concerning copyright and data rights violations.

These apocalyptic narratives persist because they're compelling and challenging to refute, making it easier for corporations to transfer their risks onto the public.

While the EU is advancing the AI Act to implement rigorous regulations by 2026, the US is taking steps to ensure federal policies do not heavily encumber national standards, effectively weakening state-level AI controls.

Present-Day Issues that Demand Attention

Osborne's writing outlines numerous current problems that AI technology is perpetuating or exacerbating.

Among them are the exploitation of poorly paid workers for labor-intensive tasks like data annotation, unauthorized use of creative works belonging to artists and writers, the substantial ecological footprint of energy-consuming data centers, and the deluge of AI-generated content complicating the search for reliable information.

He also criticizes the widely held belief that AI is on the brink of surpassing human intelligence.

Osborne dismisses such projections as akin to 'religious end-times beliefs cloaked in scientific terms,' pointing out that these ideas ignore fundamental constraints like energy demands and thermodynamics.

Necessary Changes Going Forward

Osborne advocates that instead of being preoccupied with hypothetical future risks, lawmakers should enforce existing consumer protection and care obligations on AI technologies, making firms accountable for the tangible effects of their innovations.

Despite his criticisms, Osborne does not oppose AI assistance.

He emphasizes in his essay the positive contributions that large language models can bring, particularly in aiding those with disabilities who face difficulties with traditional communication.

Nevertheless, he warns that without proper regulation, these potential advantages could be overshadowed by broader issues.

"The genuine challenges," he writes, "are about power dynamics, accountability, and determining who is empowered to develop and implement these systems."