Victor Davis Hanson: The Sudden AI Panic Is A Classic Strategy. Just Follow the Election Calendar.

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

Welcome to the Daily Signal Podcast, where we provide intelligence for the intelligent. Now, without further ado, here's today's take.

Victor Davis Hanson (0:08)

We're about 40 days, close to 40 days out of the midterm, and all of a sudden, there's been a melodramatic announcement that artificial intelligence could destroy the human race. I think everybody's always accepted that remote possibility, and it's been very popular in popular cultures, such as the Terminator series. But why did all of a sudden we hear about it now?

We're about 40 days, close to 40 days out of the midterm, and all of a sudden, there's been a melodramatic announcement that artificial intelligence could destroy the human race. I think everybody's always accepted that remote possibility, and it's been very popular in popular cultures, such as the Terminator series. But why did all of a sudden we hear about it now?

And the answer is Jason Cox, a minor figure that had worked in major AI companies, suddenly quit and he announced that even the CEOs of those companies were worried that they were creating things that they couldn't control and that artificial intelligence would on its own be able to out-think humans and perhaps control the world, etc. In The End of Everything, a book, I mentioned a theoretical experiment by the Pentagon, a computer simulation in which a missile was programmed to do anything that it could to protect itself, to complete the mission. And when one of the programmers pushed the kill button, the missile turned on the computer screen. It wasn't a real missile, but the simulated missile turned and went back at the person who pushed the button. So we've always known that that risk was there, but why was it so exaggerated right now? These CEOs, it was very interesting.

If they're so worried about the direction of research, why don't they do two things? Why don't they patrol, control, audit their own people? It's almost like saying, I'm afraid that I'll commit arson. And if you're afraid you'll commit arson, then why don't you take fuel away from that person, or don't ever touch gasoline? If you're afraid that your company will make something that will destroy mankind, then don't do it. But if you say, I still can't control it, then why are you opposing liability legislation that says the makers of AI, should that AI product be used and be used to hurt people, they're not liable?

You would say, just make us liable, that will ensure that you can trust us, because we might not trust ourselves. The other thing is they've called, and the left has called for international control. I'd like to say, if you look at the history of international control, regulations, it's not good. The League of Nations, did that stop World War II? When Mussolini decided to go into East Africa, did they stop him from using the Suez Canal? Did they tell Japan, you can't go into Manchuria or to get out of China? Did they say to Hitler, don't go into the Sudetenland? They did. Did it do any good? No.

The Kellogg-Briand Act, pact, remember that? That was going to be a worldwide, by Senator Kellogg in the United States in the 1920s, a worldwide effort to outlaw war. How did that work out on it?

Within a decade and a half, we were at a war. How about the Washington Naval Treaty? That was a very inspired, idealistic idea after World War I. Let's stop the dreadnought race. Everybody will agree to make no destroyer, cruiser, battleship over a certain tonnage.

Did Japan or Germany abide by the 35,000 ton limit on battleships? No. Did we? Yes. Did Britain? Yes.

Did France? Yes. Did Mussolini? No. Did, as I said, Germany? No. Did Japan? In other words, consensual societies do abide by international treaties, non-consensual. How about the Versailles Treaty? Did that prevent another war? No. How about the Munich agreement between Prime Minister Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler? Did he abide by that when he said, this is my last territorial conquest in Europe? No, he invaded Europe about a year later. How about the recent Paris Climate Accord? Has that reduced Chinese carbon emissions? No. They're building two to three coal plants per month. How about the United Nations Human Rights Council? Has that stopped the slaughter of Christians in Africa? Did that stop the ethnic cleansing and killing of Armenians and Aborigines? No.

So international accords won't work. So what is going on with all this melodrama? Why now? Why on the eve of an election? It's not new. Let's look at some of the end of days, scares that we've had in the past.

When I was younger, in 1968, there was the Nixon-Humphrey campaign. And all of a sudden, Paul Erlich, a Stanford professor, said, we're all going to be destroyed by overpopulation. He took the old Thomas Malthus worry in the 19th century of overpopulation. He wrote a bestseller called The Population Bomb, and it said, there's no way we can get enough fuel, food, precious metals, to feed this growing billion-person population bomb. We're doomed. And it had a lot of bad effects. People started just to have one child. In Europe, they took it very seriously. The idea was have one child, adopt one. And now Canada has a 1.25 fertility rate. Europe is about 1.33. The EU, it had disastrous consequences. And now we have more people on the planet than ever. And the per capita income of the world population is higher than when Paul Ehrlich wrote that book. 1983, there was a nuclear winter. We were all scared. Carl Sagan, he was like sort of like Paul Ehrlich, a professor. He was a cult figure. He said that we're going to have a nuclear exchange. And when we do the nuclear dust, we'll blot out the sun and we'll all die. That was in relationship to the Soviets.