Here is a recent article by the worlds most famous frontman.
Ive translated it from Swedish, nothing of value but more exposure to the agenda…
He rambles about AI, climate change and the evil russians…
AI must be regulated – but the question is how. The world is dominated by a conflict between open and closed societies, which makes a global rule system impossible, writes George Soros. Photo: Thierry Charlier/TT DN DEBATE 8/6. The world is fragile. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shocked the world, and the dark clouds of the climate crisis are towering. But the biggest threat is very recent: artificial intelligence. Where AI will lead us is uncertain, but one thing is clear: It poses a deadly threat to open societies, writes international financier George Soros.
The polycrisis has many causes. In my eyes, the most dangerous element is one that few people even thought about six months ago: artificial intelligence (AI). Climate change comes second and the Russian invasion of Ukraine moves into third place.
The list is considerably longer, but I will concentrate on these three. That should be able to reduce the confusion.
1.AI shocked the world when Microsoft made Chat GPT freely available to the public in November 2022. Dr Geoffrey Hinton, widely regarded as the godfather of AI, resigned from Google shortly afterwards to speak openly about the risks of the new technology. He thought it could destroy our civilization.
Hinton pioneered the development of neural networks that can understand and generate language and learn skills by analyzing data. As the amount of data grew, so did the capacity of AI’s so-called large language models.
This made a deep impression on Dr. Hinton. As they become more and more powerful, they also become more and more dangerous, he argued. In particular, he warned against fully autonomous weapons systems – killer robots, in his words. “It will take AI between five and twenty years to surpass human intelligence,” Hinton said. And: “It will soon understand that the more powerful it becomes, the easier it will be for it to achieve its goals.”
Hinton’s words have made a deep impression on me.
I grew up before AI. I understood at a relatively early age how difficult it is to make sense of the world, and I looked to reality for moral guidance.
We humans are both participants in and observers of the world. As participants, we want to change it in a way that benefits us; as observers, we want to understand reality as it is. These two purposes are at odds with each other. It is an important insight that allows me to distinguish between right and wrong.
Artificial intelligence destroyed this simple scheme. AI creates its own reality and when it doesn’t match the real world – which happens quite often – reality is dismissed as illusion.
This makes me an almost instinctive opponent of AI and I agree wholeheartedly with the experts who argue that it needs to be regulated. But the rules must be implemented globally because the incentive to cheat is too great: those who evade regulations gain an unfair advantage.
Unfortunately, a global system of rules is unworkable because the world is dominated by a conflict between two diametrically opposed political systems. In an open society, the role of the state is to defend individual freedom; in a closed society the role of the individual is to serve the interests of the rulers.
Artificial intelligence is developing incredibly fast, and no one can predict where it will lead us. But one thing we can be sure of: AI helps closed societies and poses a deadly threat to open societies. AI is particularly good at creating instruments of control that help closed societies monitor their subjects.
Most people who developed AI understand the need for regulation. However, there is one problem that cannot wait. General elections are due to be held in the US and UK in 2024 and AI will undoubtedly play an important role, which is unlikely to be anything but dangerous. AI is very good at producing disinformation and many malicious actors will be involved. What can we do about it? I don’t have the answer - but I hope the question gets the attention it deserves. The future of democracy in the United States depends on it.
- The second component of the polycrisis is climate change. The Paris Agreement in 2015 set a target of 1.5 degrees increase compared to pre-industrial times. It will now inevitably be exceeded.
Two highly respected climate scientists – Sir David King, chairman of the Climate crisis advisory group, and Johan Rockström of the Potsdam Institute – have warned that this could activate tipping points and lead to the collapse of life on Earth.
2.7 degrees warmer by the year 2100. That exceeds the warmest temperatures on Earth in the last four million years.
But when the fight against climate change affects people’s livelihood, they unfortunately want to protect it. Farmers in Germany and the Netherlands have fought attempts to regulate nitrogen emissions because it prevents them from keeping cows. They have mobilised, are winning elections and are shaking the EU to its core. I should also mention the oil companies’ drive to keep making big profits.
We are way behind schedule. We should do whatever the climate scientists deem necessary – reduce emissions quickly and drastically, invest in adaptation, remove excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and refreeze the Arctic.
- This brings us to the third component of the polycrisis. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine came as a negative shock to the world, disrupting food chains and causing tremendous geopolitical upheaval.
Having said that, the actual outcome is better than expected. The Ukrainian army has put up a heroic resistance, strongly supported by the US and Europe. The Russian army turned out to be a paper tiger, badly led and utterly corrupt. As a consequence, Ukraine is now ready to launch a counter-offensive as soon as the equipment promised to it by the West has been delivered.
I believe that the counter-offensive, once it takes place, will be successful. The goal will be the Crimean Peninsula, home base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. By destroying the already damaged bridge to Russia, Ukraine could turn a strategic asset into a liability. Without a bridge connection, Crimea becomes dependent on Ukraine for water.
Several parts of Russia already dislike the Putin regime and such a development could make them throw it off altogether. Putin’s dream, a Russian empire, could crumble and no longer pose a threat to Europe and the world.
The end of the war in Ukraine will be a positive shock to the world. It gives President Biden an opportunity to reduce tensions between the United States and China, which is itself in an economic downturn that could make Xi Jinping more accommodating.
A Russian defeat in Ukraine and an easing of Sino-American tensions could give world leaders room to focus on the climate change that threatens to destroy our civilization. But only a narrow and winding road leads there. So it is appropriate to use a question mark when asking the question whether democracy can survive the polycrisis.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Syndicate Project)
