Demis Hassabis, Nobel Prize winner, warns of the risk of losing control of AI

Let’s think for a moment about how the technology market moved before November 2022. The artificial intelligence It was already present in search engines, cameras, recommendations and digital services, but it was not yet the label that brands tried to place on each product or the argument around which a good part of their presentations revolved. The industry had other visible priorities and distributed its attention among multiple fronts. Less than four years later, it’s hard to find a large manufacturer or platform that hasn’t reorganized part of its strategy around AI. You only have to look at where the money is flowing to understand the magnitude of this race. Big technology companies allocate huge investments to chips, servers and data centers that span different parts of the world, while seeking to ensure the energy necessary to keep them running. Governments are not just watching, either: the United States and China support the development of infrastructure and computing capacity as part of economic and strategic competition. In the midst of this acceleration, one of its main protagonists has warned that we are advancing faster than we understand. The warning from those who are on the front line of the race The message does not come from outside the sector. Demis Hassabis He is co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, one of the laboratories that promotes the development of the most advanced artificial intelligence systems. Under his direction, projects such as AlphaGo, who defeated a world Go championand AlphaFold, capable of predicting protein structures. In 2024, Hassabis and John Jumper jointly received half of Nobel Prize of Chemistry for his work on protein structure prediction. His words have weight precisely because of this double condition: he helps build this technology and, at the same time, he calls for mechanisms to contain its risks. Part of the text published by Demis Hassabis in X | Click to see the full message Hassabis starts from a conviction that helps understand the urgency of his proposal: he believes that general artificial intelligence (AGI), defined in its text as a system capable of exhibiting all the cognitive capabilities of the human brain, could arrive in just a few years. He does not present it as a certainty, but as a close possibility that would force us to prepare before technology reaches that point. Their concern covers cybersecurity, possible biological and nuclear risks and, later, increasingly autonomous systems, capable of acting with less supervision and improving their own capabilities. In an extensive article published in Xthe manager tries to hold two ideas at the same time. Artificial intelligence can become an extraordinary tool for science, medicine and the economy, but that potential does not eliminate the need for establish controls and oversight mechanisms. Nor does he propose waiting for a specific threat to appear to react, because then the measures could arrive too late. Before detailing which organization and what evaluations it considers necessary, it sets out the diagnosis that serves as the basis for its entire proposal: “We are currently locked in an extremely intense trade and geopolitical race unfolding at multiple levels. While these competitive dynamics are driving rapid advances and accelerating their extraordinary benefits, progress on the frontier of AI is outpacing our understanding of the technology. No one in the world knows for sure what will happen next, and not even the experts agree. When there is such a high degree of uncertainty and so much at stake, moving forward with cautious optimism is the sensible and correct strategy.” The answer he proposes is to create in the United States a specialized organization in evaluating the most advanced artificial intelligence models. Their proposal takes as reference a public-private partnership or a self-regulatory entity with federal supervision, led by a board that would also include independent specialists and representatives of the open source ecosystem. This institution would define what thresholds make a system a frontier model and design assessments on cybersecurity, biological threats and other high-risk areas, as well as tests to detect attempts to circumvent safeguards or signs of deception. In a first stage, laboratories would voluntarily share their models up to 30 days before launching them. Initial cooperation could later become a mandatory requirement. Once the protocol is validated, any model considered frontier would have to pass the evaluation before reaching the United States market. Tests would be periodically reviewed to replace outdated ones and measure new capabilities, while independent auditors would help expand the control system. The approach goes even further: if the severity of the risks justified it, the framework could be used to coordinate a slowdown in development between major laboratories. The concern is not exclusive to Hassabis. Geoffrey Hinton has recognized that we do not know if we will be able to retain control of systems more intelligent than us, while Joshua Bengio calls for more research and specific mechanisms to monitor them. In 2023, Elon Musk also signed an open letter what he asked for pause for at least six months the training of more powerful AI systems than GPT-4although a few months later it announced xAI and began to compete directly in this market. Many of these voices agree in calling for caution, but there is no consensus on the probability that we will lose control. The history of artificial intelligence still does not have a written outcome, although its first effects have already changed our relationship with technology and the decisions of those who develop it. It remains to be seen whether the body proposed by Hassabis would have a place, whether its evaluations would be truly effective, and whether laboratories and governments would agree to submit to them when they conflicted with their own interests. It may also happen that some of the risks it poses are oversized or do not materialize. For now, his proposal adds a concrete roadmap to a discussion in which there are still more unknowns than certainties. Images | Google In Xataka | Claude has a space … Read more

Previously, at the G7 meetings, the focus was on world leaders. Now the protagonists are Amodei, Altman and Hassabis

This week the edition was held number 52 of the G7 summit. Representatives of the seven largest world powers debated Ukraine, the Middle East, or rare earths, as expected. What was not so expected is that the true protagonists of the event were not those world leaders, but the directors of Anthropic, OpenAI, Google or Mistral who participated in the other great debate of our time: the future of AI. Power changes hands (a little). Jessica Brandt, of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)—an American think tank— defined the situation with a powerful phrase: “We are seeing a change in who gets a seat at the table, and a sign of where power lies.” Exceptional guests. This expert commented on how today states need to have AI companies as allies. What has happened with Anthropic and the Pentagon first and with Claude Fable 5 They then demonstrate how AI has become a weapon for country governments. One that no one wants to do without, so the leaders of the main Western AI companies have been invited to contribute to a debate that has become crucial for the future. The courtship of Amodei, Altman and Hassabis. Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI), Dario Amodei (CEO of Anthropic) and Demis Hassabis (CEO of Google DeepMind) were the three great highlights of a group of technology executives that also included Arthur Mensch, CEO of the French startup Mistral or Alexandr Wang, head of AI at Meta. World leaders courted these managers: Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, met with Mensch, for example, and Amodei did it with Macronand Hassabis, Altman and the aforementioned Amodei were part of a working lunch in which Donald Trump or Emmanuel Macron were among others. Technological dependence. The situation reflects a palpable reality: the G7 leaders meet to close all types of geopolitical agreements, but they depend completely on the private infrastructure and the hardware and software of big technology. The top leaders are clear that we must get along with these companies, but the balance of power is certainly delicate: the recent US veto of Fable 5 is a demonstration. Can countries appropriate their companies’ technology and control it? AI as a weapon. Recent announcements of AI models with advanced cybersecurity capabilities such as Claude Mythos Preview and Mythos 5 or GPT-5.5 Cyber ​​have made companies and governments noticeably concerned. Europe, for example, already complained having been set aside when Anthropic allowed some companies to use Mythos Preview. The US goes to its own. Emerson Brooking, a partner at the Atlantic Council, explained on CNBC how export controls on Anthropic models “have changed everything.” And he added that “Several G7 countries have previously alluded to the need for sovereign investments in AI, but it has always been assumed that these would take place in conjunction with access to the US technological stack. Now the US has indicated its willingness to cut off access to its AI technology both to the G7 and even to its treaties with allied powers.” Companies above governments? Advanced AI models are becoming in their own right one of the most desired and desired resources by not only companies, but also governments that are realizing what is at stake. He world geopolitical panorama already faced a similar situation with the development of nuclear weapons: only some countries can manufacture and deploy them. Digital divide on the horizon. AI is more diffuse, because models (especially open ones) are filtered, copied, and derived versions emerge from them. But one thing is certain: the data centers on which these models run are mostly under the control of companies from the US and China. Nuclear power offered deterrence, but AI can create a huge digital divide between those who control it and those who can only hope to use it. In Xataka | Claude Fable 5 has made it very clear what the big problem facing Europe is: AI is a weapon and it has none

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.