Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

The discourse on AI is overly focused on preventing harms like existential risk. A more productive approach is to also define a public agenda for what we want AI to *achieve*—the public 'goods' it can create, such as solving orphan diseases or simplifying government services.

Related Insights

The motivation behind creating superintelligence is that it could apply its radical intelligence to solve humanity's biggest problems, like disease and scarcity. This could lead to a scale of abundance and flourishing currently unimaginable, echoing historical progress driven by technological advancements.

The primary objective of AI-related public policy should not be to halt technological progress or merely manage job displacement. Instead, it should focus on guiding the technology to empower individuals, giving them more freedom, agency, and the ability to pursue meaningful lives, thus enabling humanity rather than replacing it.

Aligning AI with a specific ethical framework is fraught with disagreement. A better target is "human flourishing," as there is broader consensus on its fundamental components like health, family, and education, providing a more robust and universal goal for AGI.

The public discourse on AI is fixated on negative outcomes like job displacement and bubbles. There is a notable absence of a clear, compelling vision for what a positive, constructive, and abundant future with AI actually looks like for society.

The current AI narrative often removes human agency, creating fear. Reframing AI's capabilities as tools that empower people—much like how Steve Jobs pitched personal computers—can make the technology more inspiring and less threatening to the general public, fostering wider acceptance.

The public and political vibe is shifting against AI because the industry has a "horrible messaging" problem. Leaders fail to articulate the positive upside for society, allowing negative narratives about job loss and wealth concentration to dominate, which will inevitably lead to restrictive regulation.

The AI competition is not a race to develop the most powerful technology, but a race to see which nation is better at steering and governing that power. Developing an uncontrollable 'AI bazooka' first is not a win; true advantage comes from creating systems that strengthen, rather than weaken, one's own society.

Beyond preventing AI suffering, a key goal of AI welfare research is to provide a rational framework for navigating the future. As AI becomes more sophisticated, society will face confusing, emotional decisions; rigorous welfare research can act as an anchor to prevent rash or catastrophic choices.

AI will create negative consequences, like the internet spawned the dark web. However, its potential to solve major problems like disease and energy scarcity makes its development a net positive for society, justifying the risks that must be managed along the way.

Ajeya Cotra reframes the concept of an AI pause. Instead of a binary 'stop' (0% of labor on R&D), she suggests thinking of it as a spectrum. The goal should be to redirect the vast majority of AI labor from accelerating capabilities to solving safety, biodefense, and other critical societal challenges.

Develop a Public Agenda for AI 'Goods,' Not Just a Defense Against Harms | RiffOn