Dr Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Dept of Philosophy, Chancellors Fellow in the Centre for Technmoral Futures
The
conventional discourse on existential risks (x-risks) from AI typically
focuses on abrupt, dire events caused by advanced AI systems,
particularly those that might achieve or surpass human-level
intelligence. These events have severe consequences that either lead to
human extinction or irreversibly cripple human civilization to a point
beyond recovery. This discourse, however, often neglects the serious
possibility of AI x-risks manifesting incrementally through a series of
smaller yet interconnected disruptions, gradually crossing critical
thresholds over time. This paper contrasts the conventional "decisive AI
x-risk hypothesis" with an "accumulative AI x-risk hypothesis." While
the former envisions an overt AI takeover pathway, characterized by
scenarios like uncontrollable superintelligence, the latter suggests a
different causal pathway to existential catastrophes. This involves a
gradual accumulation of critical AI-induced threats such as severe
vulnerabilities and systemic erosion of econopolitical structures. The
accumulative hypothesis suggests a boiling frog scenario where
incremental AI risks slowly converge, undermining resilience until a
triggering event results in irreversible collapse. Through systems
analysis, this paper examines the distinct assumptions differentiating
these two hypotheses. It is then argued that the accumulative view
reconciles seemingly incompatible perspectives on AI risks. The
implications of differentiating between these causal pathways -- the
decisive and the accumulative -- for the governance of AI risks as well
as long-term AI safety are discussed.