The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsHow to stop the AI-pocalypse
Anxiety has recently taken an existential turn, as the industry’s leaders have begun warning that AI could very well end humanity.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
Protesters during a “Stop the AI Race“ demonstration on Sept. 17, 2026, calling for a slowdown in the development of advanced artificial intelligence outside City Hall in San Francisco, California, the United States. (AFP/Karl Mondon)
O
ver the past decade, scholars and journalists have been writing about what the march of digital technology means for humanity with a mixture of hope and anxiety: Hope because of the rise in living standards that the digital revolution has made possible, and anxiety because it has deepened social divisions and destabilized politics around the world.
But anxiety has recently taken an existential turn, as the industry’s leaders have begun warning that artificial intelligence could very well end humanity. Most notably, Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment science lead, said there’s a greater than 10 percent chance that AI will kill all humans within the next decade. Similar, though somewhat less alarmist, warnings have come from OpenAI chief executive officer Sam Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Bill Gates and other prominent tech figures, all of whom have called for slowing down AI development.
Naturally, these warnings have fueled concerns about what AI can do to us rather than for us. AI models can already build more advanced AI with little human involvement, raising the prospect of “recursive self-improvement” that unleashes forces we have little ability to understand or control. The Hugging Face breach, in which hundreds of AI agents that were supposed to work independently found ways to communicate and started acting as a swarm, offered a disturbing preview.
All this brings to mind Bertrand Russell. In his famous critique of induction, Russell noted how chickens that get used to being patted every morning are in for a shock when, one day, the farmer, presumably having invited friends for lunch, wrings their necks instead. As he observed, “more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken”.
I share Russell’s skepticism of induction but am not persuaded by his advice for the chickens. If the chickens followed his advice, they would simply live their last days in helpless panic. It is different for humans, since, unlike Russell’s chickens, we have the power to modify our own behavior. And there is no shortage of proposals for how we should curb the excesses of AI, from pausing the development of frontier models to banning superintelligent AI altogether.
As sensible as these proposals may be, they may not work. Game theory, and the prisoner’s dilemma in particular, tells us why. If each corporation is left to act unilaterally and in its own interest, we may end up with the worst outcome for everyone. What is needed, as Amodei has argued, is “industry-wide coordination”. Yet even that may not be enough, since AI is also a geopolitical problem. If the United States exercises restraint, China could surge ahead.
Some commentators have seized on this fear to argue that the US must not hold back on AI development. That would be a mistake. The US should work with China to reach a global agreement, but even if that doesn’t happen, there is no reason to charge ahead at full speed. It is worth remembering that the only time atomic bombs have been used in war was when the US had a nuclear monopoly. It sounds Machiavellian, but nuclear restraint took hold only after the Soviet Union, and eventually other countries, acquired the bomb. The same logic may apply to AI.
