Anxiety, more than technological rigor, is at the heart of The AI Doc: or how I became an apocaloptimist. Director Daniel Roher worries about the future he brings a child into: will it be an AI utopia? Or does it mean certain doom, something explored in countless science fiction stories. To understand it all, he interviewed some of AI’s best-known supporters and critics, including The AI empire author Karen Hao, AI researcher Emily Bender, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.
The AI documentwhich hits theaters this weekend, doesn’t really shed any new light. For this, I would recommend reading Hao’s industry-defining book, which chronicles the rise of OpenAI and the precarious nature of its business. But I don’t think technicians are the main audience for this film. Instead, Roher tries to describe the state of AI for the general public, people who may occasionally use ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini, but don’t know why they’re controversial. In particular, the film exposes the almost religious devotion that many in the tech world have toward AI.
It’s no spoiler to say that Roher ultimately takes an “apocaloptimistic” view. He is aware of the potential dangers of AI and that it will likely have a serious societal impact. But he also believes that humans have the ability to determine where they go. Proponents of AI have a quasi-religious belief in the possibility of artificial general intelligence (AGI), or AI capable of matching and surpassing human capabilities. But AGI is not inevitable, and Roher argues that critics and audiences have the opportunity to respond.
We are already seeing small examples of AI resistance. Just look at the viscerally negative response to NVIDIA’s DLSS 5 AI scaling; Microsoft’s recent plans for remove Copilot AI features in Windows 11; Or OpenAI closes its Sora AI video generation application. (The latter may be due to the sheer expense, but Sora has certainly received plenty of criticism.) If enough people say no to various AI implementations, tech companies are likely to respond.
The AI document divides its narrative between true believers — like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei — and prominent AI critics — like Tristan Harris, co-founder and president of the Center of Humane Technology, as well as linguistics professor Emily M. Bender. It’s easy to feel a bit of whiplash when the film is aimed at people who sincerely believe that AI will lead to some kind of utopia (and who will also become incredibly rich in the process) and extreme critics who think it will mean the end of humanity. At one point, Harris mentions that some of his friends working in AI risk assessment think their kids “won’t go to high school.” There is still this anxiety.
While The AI document While the book features an impressive amount of remarkable interviews over the course of an hour and 43 minutes, I would have liked to hear more from critics like Timnit Gebru, a former Google AI researcher who also associates the development of AI with a rise of “techno-fascism” in Silicon Valley. She appears briefly in the film, but her point of view is not fully developed. The AI document does not explore the driving forces behind AI very deeply, while Ghost in the machinethis year’s other major AI documentary, draws a direct line from the rise of eugenics to Silicon Valley. (Ghost in the machine will be released in theaters this summer and will be broadcast on PBS in the fall.)
It’s the kind of energetic, animation-heavy documentary that wants to make sure audiences never get bored. But the threat of AI deserves more nuance and critical examination. At worst, The AI document could lead more people to question the value of AI, as the tech industry desperately seeks to make it a success.
This article was originally published on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/the-ai-doc-explores-how-we-can-survive-an-uncertain-ai-future-154341735.html?src=rss
