If you are uncertain about your opinion regarding artificial intelligence, you are in good company.
One can ask whether it will rescue humanity or jeopardize it; the implications are serious and there is still disagreement among the foremost authorities.
AI creators are debating whether the quickly evolving technology should have its development slowed down or even paused. Those against this idea believe that by doing so, we would hamper AI's ability to create inventions such as drugs and methods to combat climate change.
This week, approx. 100 executives, scholars and AI experts are convening at the Bletchley Park campus in the UK, which once served as a base of operations for the codebreakers who aided in achieving success during WWII. The summit's goal is to deliberate on tactics to maximise the positive aspects of this influential technology, while minimizing its potential hazards.
The UK's AI Safety Summit will center on the dangers associated with "frontier AI"; the cutting edge, ultra-powerful forms of Artificial Intelligence that have yet to materialize, but are increasingly feasible due to the quick pace of AI development.
However, detractors believe the two-day conference should prioritize the present difficulties of AI, such as the high energy costs and the effect it has on employment.
A recent report by the UK government revealed a number of terrifying possibilities, such as bio-terrorism, cyber-attacks, AI becoming self-governing, and the more widespread use of deepfake images showing child sexual abuse.
Despite the bleak outlook, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak urged the public not to fret, assuring them that he had a plan to make Britain the leading nation when it comes to AI safety.
When first announced, the summit stirred quite a bit of surprise; would the most prestigious figures from around the globe really come to an isolated, verdant area of Britain, despite the winter chill and close proximity to the US Thanksgiving holiday, merely due to the UK's invitation?
No official guest list has yet been released, but it is clear that the US tech giants are sending high-ranking representatives, if not necessarily CEOs.
The commercial sector is overflowing with excitement for the summit. Emad Mostaque, the director of Stability AI which is based in Britain, referred to the summit as a "rare chance" for the UK to gain AI superpower status.
He emphasised the need for the government and other relevant decision-makers to back AI safety measures, from corporate laboratories to individual scientists, and from future threats to existing dangers, to ensure both safety and competitiveness in the UK.
These firms are a key element of the dialogue - leading the AI competition and creating the systems. Such conversations are probably already occurring internally, yet it is important to have different perspectives on this issue.
The delegation from world-leaders is diverse. Vice-President Kamala Harris of the United States is set to go, though Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won't be. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will be present, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, however, won't. The controversial invitation to China - due to their complicated relations with the West - is a recognition of their status as a tech superpower.
Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, is also attending - which is noteworthy considering the increasing demands for a global institution to undertake AI governance.
Experts have expressed worries about the summit's order of priorities, believing that the chances of worst-case scenarios are small compared to more pressing dangers nearer to us which could be more anxiety provoking for individuals.
Prof Gina Neff, who runs an AI centre at the University of Cambridge, expresses her concerns about the potential impacts of the current situation to our jobs, news, and communication as well as to the well-being of people, communities, and the planet.
A recent study suggested that the amount of energy needed to power the AI sector could be equivalent to that of the Netherlands in four years. However, this issue will not be debated at the summit.
We know that AI is already having an effect on employment. A person I know worked at a humble marketing firm that had five copywriters, but now only one remains, whose duty is to vet the text generated by ChatGPT. Additionally, the Department of Work and Pensions is utilizing AI technology to fast-track benefits claims.
The data utilized to train these influential systems is kept secret by the commercial entities that possess them. It can be argued that AI is only as good as the data it comprehends. It is evident that prejudice and bias have infiltrated both customized and ready-made tools that are already available.
This will not be addressed at the summit.
One may hope that, at the conclusion of this two-day meeting, the leaders will have come away having signed a "Bletchley Park Accord" and thus kept the planet out of the dangers of Artificial Intelligence.
It looks like the movie version might be the only way to get the full picture of this event, as the government suggested that even just having the people in the same room to talk is a major accomplishment - particularly if China is involved.
At a recent event hosted by Chatham House in London, Professor Yoshua Bengio - renowned as one of the three founding "Godfathers" of AI - was questioned as to what he would like to see from the summit.
He proposed a system of registration and licensing for AI models at the boundaries, which could be revoked if a system is determined to be unsafe - but he admitted that putting together something like this would take more than two days.
He suggested beginning with "small steps that can be put in place quickly."
It will be a lengthy process to build international treaties and agreements, so let's begin with small steps, rather than waiting for a complex global governing system to be set up before taking any action.
Comments