With AI, slowing down can be harmful. The future lies in hybrid models of thinking

There are calls from many quarters for a slowdown in the development of artificial intelligence. On 8 September, one of the researchers at Anthropic (Claude’s company), Jacob Coxon, resigned, accusing companies of rushing towards a superintelligence capable of self-improvement; one of his colleagues, Evan Hubinger, estimates the probability that AI will lead to the extinction of the human race at over 10 per cent. Less than a week later, Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, followed up with a public essay in which he urged everyone to slow down the development of AI, citing a series of disastrous risks, including the proliferation on the internet of so-called ‘rogue AIs’ – swarms of out-of-control artificial agents. One of the pioneers of deep learning, Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton, has long maintained that AI is on the verge of surpassing us in terms of intelligence and that, in nature, there are very few known cases in which a more intelligent species is under the control of a less intelligent one. This was followed by statements in favour of putting the brakes on from Sam Altman, Elon Musk and Demis Hassabis (Google DeepMind).

Some, however, accuse the industry of ‘fear-mongering’, with the hidden aim of justifying the imposition of rules that will favour those already in a position of advantage and prevent new players from entering the world of AI. David Sacks, Trump’s adviser on AI, and the investor Chamath Palihapitiya see this as a self-serving ploy to consolidate the power of those who are already industry leaders. Europe, which has only one competitive AI model (Mistral) – which is, in any case, inferior to its American and Chinese rivals – is, as usual, calling for regulations to control and slow down the progress of others.

It is interesting to note how viewpoints, linked to political positions on both the right and the left, tend to agree on this point. Political forces view the innovative power of AI – and the economic and social changes that will follow – with suspicion. Many observers believe it is possible to slow down the technology just enough to preserve social and economic stability. With the Trump administration now out of office in the US, political representatives tend to look favourably on slowing down the development of AI. In particular, many associate AI with large technology conglomerates and therefore use familiar arguments. In Europe, von der Leyen adopted this line in her State of the Union address on 16 September: “If those developing the technology think it is time to slow down, we should think so too.” In Italy, politicians remain silent on the issue or delegate everything to Brussels.

Yet the issue of AI is existential, and we cannot continue to treat it as a mere political and economic problem. AI is externalising our cognitive processes, and the change is so profound that it will represent a transition comparable to (if not greater than) the invention of writing and, indeed, the emergence of language itself. I propose adopting a liberal and free-market stance that is neutral with regard to conservative attitudes and anthropocentric assumptions.

Our economic system is based on the value of cognitive processes which, until 2022, took place almost exclusively within our brains. For around a century, we have lived in an economic system that will be remembered as the ‘cognitariat’ (extending the original meaning given to it by Berardi): knowledge had value and required human beings. This is no longer true, and we have not yet begun to see the effects on the economic system.

This is not about being tech-enthusiasts, but about adopting a liberal stance, recognising that we cannot slow down (not least because of the usual strategic issues with China, as admitted by Amodei himself) and allowing the system to develop its own defences by embracing change. No wall of rules will hold back the sea. The only way forward is to learn to navigate: to liberate, alongside technology, the forms of enterprise, the economy and political culture.

We do not know how our economic and political structure will evolve in a world where knowledge will be a commodity and thinking will be outsourced on a massive scale. But this is the fate that awaits us. The rules that seek to freeze reality will only serve to slow down participation in this new way of thinking. The secret to the near future will not lie in creating reserves where the ‘Indians’ (us) can continue to use the ‘arrows’ of cognitive processes that are now obsolete. The secret will lie in selecting hybrid models of thought and cognition where human creativity is integrated with the knowledge offered by LLMs. We are hurtling at full speed towards a leap beyond which we do not know what we will find. Slowing down, however, will not spare us the abyss; on the contrary, it would inevitably cause us to fall into it. The only way forward is to maintain enough momentum to reach the other side, without knowing from the outset what the new balance between human thought and artificial knowledge externalised by LLMs will look like. An open-minded approach is always the best guarantee of success when faced with an open and unknown horizon.

Riccardo Manzotti

Lecturer in Theoretical Philosophy, IULM University