The letter calls on everyone to build, deploy, and use AI to improve people’s lives and unlock a better future. But with only four brief paragraphs, it lacks details and raises questions about its purpose and target audience. This is particularly concerning considering recent controversies surrounding Google’s Gemini failures, OpenAI’s nonprofit structure and AGI mission, and the capabilities of Anthropic’s Claude 3 models.
The vague pronouncements in the letter, such as “The purpose of AI is for humans to thrive much more than we could before,” and “AI is for all of us,” make it difficult to understand its true purpose and timing. It even comes across as insulting to the public’s intelligence. At a time when both consumers and businesses are seeking answers about transparency, accountability, privacy, bias, inequality, climate change, workforce impact, election influence, and warfare, the letter fails to address any of these concerns.
This lack of engagement with important issues does nothing to alleviate the growing disillusionment surrounding AI development. In a previous article, the author highlighted the need for companies to communicate the value and benefits of AI to individuals, workers, enterprises, and society at large. Merely stating that AI is improving daily life is not enough.
The open letter has faced criticism from various quarters. Emily Bender, a linguistics professor at the University of Washington, parodied the letter with her own version titled “Build ‘AI’ for a More Exploitative Future,” highlighting the potential negative consequences of AI development. Signal Foundation president Meredith Whittaker also found the letter odd and lacking in substance. She questioned who the letter was trying to convince and what its purpose truly was.
Whittaker pointed out that unlike previous open letters that demanded changes from large tech companies, this letter seemed more like a sterile corporate marketing tool. It appears to signal the benevolent intentions of the signatory companies while avoiding any real commitment to making necessary changes.
In conclusion, the “Build AI for a Better Future” open letter may have an impressive list of signatories, but it falls short in terms of providing meaningful details and addressing important concerns. Its vague pronouncements and lack of clear commitments make it a patronizing document that fails to inspire confidence. The AI industry needs more than platitudes to regain public trust and demonstrate the true value and benefits of AI technology.
