{"id":15686,"date":"2024-10-19T11:33:47","date_gmt":"2024-10-19T10:33:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/roglacup.com\/klaus62\/?p=15686"},"modified":"2024-10-19T13:58:13","modified_gmt":"2024-10-19T12:58:13","slug":"how-ai-could-transform-the-world-for-the-better","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/roglacup.com\/klaus62\/2024\/10\/19\/how-ai-could-transform-the-world-for-the-better\/","title":{"rendered":"How AI Could Transform the World for the Better"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hanging on the wall of Anthropic\u2019s offices in San Francisco in early May, a stone\u2019s throw from the conference room where CEO Dario Amodei would shortly sit for an interview with TIME, was a framed meme. Its single panel showed a giant robot ransacking a burning city. Underneath, the image\u2019s tongue-in-cheek title: Deep learning is hitting a wall<\/em>. That\u2019s a refrain you often hear from AI skeptics, who claim that rapid progress in artificial intelligence will soon taper off. But in the image, an arrow points to the robot, labeling it \u201cdeep learning.\u201d Another points to the devastated city: \u201cwall.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cheeky meme sums up the attitude inside Anthropic, an AI company where most employees seem to believe that AI progress isn\u2019t slowing down\u2014and could potentially result in dangerous outcomes for humanity. Amodei, who was on the cover of TIME last month as his company was named one of TIME\u2019s 100 Most Influential Companies of 2024<\/a>, says Anthropic is devoted to studying cutting-edge AI systems and developing new safety methods. And yet Anthropic is also a leading competitor to OpenAI, releasing powerful tools for use by the public and businesses, in what even Amodei himself has worried might be a perilous race that could end badly.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 20, Anthropic fired its latest broadside in that race, releasing the latest version of its Claude chatbot:\u00a0Claude 3.5 Sonnet.<\/a>\u00a0The model, according to the company, sets new industry standards on reasoning, coding and some types of math, beating GPT-4o, the most recent offering from OpenAI. \u201cWith today’s launch, we’re taking a step towards what we believe could be a significant shift in how we interact with technology,\u201d Amodei said in a statement on June 20. \u201cOur goal with Claude isn’t to create an incrementally better [large language model] but to develop an AI system that can work alongside people and software in meaningful ways.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted from: https:\/\/time.com\/6990386\/anthropic-dario-amodei-interview\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think and talk a lot about the risks of powerful AI. The company I\u2019m the CEO of, Anthropic, does a lot of research on how to reduce these risks. Because of this, people sometimes draw the conclusion that I\u2019m a pessimist or \u201cdoomer\u201d who thinks AI will be mostly bad or dangerous. I don\u2019t think that at all. In fact, one of my main reasons for focusing on risks is that they\u2019re the only thing standing between us and what I see as a fundamentally positive future.\u00a0I think that most people are underestimating just how radical the upside of AI could be<\/strong>, just as I think most people are underestimating how bad the risks could be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The list of positive applications of powerful AI is extremely long (and includes robotics, manufacturing, energy, and much more), but I\u2019m going to focus on a small number of areas that seem to me to have the greatest potential to directly improve the quality of human life. The five categories I am most excited about are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Biology and physical health<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Neuroscience and mental health<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Economic development and poverty<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Peace and governance<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Work and meaning<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    1. Biology and health<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Biology is probably the area where scientific progress has the greatest potential to directly and unambiguously improve the quality of human life. In the last century some of the most ancient human afflictions (such as smallpox) have finally been vanquished, but many more still remain, and defeating them would be an enormous humanitarian accomplishment. Beyond even curing disease, biological science can in principle improve the baseline<\/em> quality of human health, by extending the healthy human lifespan, increasing control and freedom over our own biological processes, and addressing everyday problems that we currently think of as immutable parts of the human condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the \u201climiting factors\u201d language of the previous section, the main challenges with directly applying intelligence to biology are data, the speed of the physical world, and intrinsic complexity (in fact, all three are related to each other). Human constraints also play a role at a later stage, when clinical trials are involved. Let\u2019s take these one by one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Experiments on cells, animals, and even chemical processes are limited by the speed of the physical world: many biological protocols involve culturing bacteria or other cells, or simply waiting for chemical reactions to occur, and this can sometimes take days or even weeks, with no obvious way to speed it up. Animal experiments can take months (or more) and human experiments often take years (or even decades for long-term outcome studies). Somewhat related to this, data is often lacking\u2014not so much in quantity, but quality: there is always a dearth of clear, unambiguous data that isolates a biological effect of interest from the other 10,000 confounding things that are going on, or that intervenes causally in a given process, or that directly measures some effect (as opposed to inferring its consequences in some indirect or noisy way). Even massive, quantitative molecular data, like the proteomics data that I collected while working on mass spectrometry techniques, is noisy and misses a lot (which types of cells were these proteins in? Which part of the cell? At what phase in the cell cycle?).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In part responsible for these problems with data is intrinsic complexity: if you\u2019ve ever seen a diagram showing the biochemistry of human metabolism<\/a>, you\u2019ll know that it\u2019s very hard to isolate the effect of any part of this complex system, and even harder to intervene on the system in a precise or predictable way. And finally, beyond just the intrinsic time that it takes to run an experiment on humans, actual clinical trials involve a lot of bureaucracy and regulatory requirements that (in the opinion of many people, including me) add unnecessary additional time and delay progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Given all this, many biologists have long been skeptical<\/a> of the value of AI and \u201cbig data\u201d more generally in biology. Historically, mathematicians, computer scientists, and physicists who have applied their skills to biology over the last 30 years have been quite successful, but have not had the truly transformative impact initially hoped for. Some of the skepticism has been reduced by major and revolutionary breakthroughs like AlphaFold<\/a> (which has just deservedly won its creators the Nobel Prize in Chemistry<\/a>) and AlphaProteo<\/a>11<\/a><\/sup>, but there\u2019s still a perception that AI is (and will continue to be) useful in only a limited set of circumstances. A common formulation is \u201cAI can do a better job analyzing your data, but it can\u2019t produce more data or improve the quality of the data. Garbage in, garbage out\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But I think that pessimistic perspective is thinking about AI in the wrong way. If our core hypothesis about AI progress is correct, then the right way to think of AI is not as a method of data analysis, but as a virtual biologist who performs all<\/em> the tasks biologists do, including designing and running experiments in the real world (by controlling lab robots or simply telling humans which experiments to run \u2013 as a Principal Investigator would to their graduate students), inventing new biological methods or measurement techniques, and so on. It is by speeding up the whole research process<\/em> that AI can truly accelerate biology. I want to repeat this because it\u2019s the most common misconception that comes up when I talk about AI\u2019s ability to transform biology: I am not<\/em> talking about AI as merely a tool to analyze data. In line with the definition of powerful AI at the beginning of this essay, I\u2019m talking about using AI to perform, direct, and improve upon nearly everything biologists do.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To get more specific on where I think acceleration is likely to come from, a surprisingly large fraction of the progress in biology has come from a truly tiny number of discoveries, often related to broad measurement tools or techniques12<\/a><\/sup> that allow precise but generalized or programmable intervention in biological systems. There\u2019s perhaps ~1 of these major discoveries per year and collectively they arguably drive >50% of progress in biology. These discoveries are so powerful precisely because they cut through intrinsic complexity and data limitations, directly increasing our understanding and control over biological processes. A few discoveries per decade have enabled both the bulk of our basic scientific understanding of biology, and have driven many of the most powerful medical treatments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Some examples include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n