Cited by 6Ethics and Social Impacts of AICybernetics and Technology in SocietyPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

Motivations for Artificial Intelligence, for Deep Learning, for ALife: Mortality and Existential Risk

Open access
Harvey, Inman·2024·Artificial Life

Abstract

We survey the general trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI) over the last century, in the context of influences from Artificial Life. With a broad brush, we can divide technical approaches to solving AI problems into two camps: GOFAIstic (or computationally inspired) or cybernetic (or ALife inspired). The latter approach has enabled advances in deep learning and the astonishing AI advances we see today—bringing immense benefits but also societal risks. There is a similar divide, regrettably unrecognized, over the very way that such AI problems have been framed. To date, this has been overwhelmingly GOFAIstic, meaning that tools for humans to use have been developed; they have no agency or motivations of their own. We explore the implications of this for concerns about existential risk for humans of the “robots taking over.” The risks may be blamed exclusively on human users—the robots could not care less.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/artl_a_00427

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [17]17. Harvey, I. (1996). Untimed and misrepresented: Connectionism and the computer metaphor. AISB Quarterly, 96, 20-27.
  2. [18]18. Harvey, I. (2008). Misrepresentations. In S. Bullock, J. Noble, R. A. Watson, & M. A. Bedau (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh International Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 227-233). MIT Press.
  3. [20]20. Harvey, I. (2013b). Standing on the broad shoulders of Ashby. Open peer commentary on: "Homeostasis for the 21st century? Simulating Ashby simulating the Brain" by Franchi, S. Constructivist Foundations, 9(19), 102-104.
  4. [30]30. Holland, O. E. (1997). Grey Walter: The pioneer of real Artificial Life. In C. Langton (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Artificial Life (pp. 34-44). MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harvey, I.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Harvey, Inman
Venue
Artificial Life
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2024
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
48-64
ISSN
  • 1064-5462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9185
OpenAlex
W4391757052
Cited by
6
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Artificial Life (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
artificial intelligence, deep learning, existential risk, mortality, AI agency, societal risks of AI, human-AI relationship
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Motivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review