Caroline Lucas, "When someone like Sam Altman says, ‘Trust me, I’m going to be able to take care of this for you,’ we should all be deeply worried indeed."
"And of course, when you’ve got Geoffrey Hinton, who’s known as the godfather of AI, himself saying that he believes those whistleblowers who suggested there is a 10% chance of human extinction sound about right, then I think we need to be deeply worried."
"But I think the most worrying thing about it, in a sense, is not the technology per se. It’s the capitalist giants who own it and whose interests it serves."
"So it seems to me that, in a way, this kind of AI is a microcosm of so many things that are wrong in the world, because it’s basically controlled by a very small handful of people who are out for as much profit as they can possibly get."
"So I accept that there are obviously positive gains to be had from AI, but I think we really need to ask some deeper questions about who owns it, what it’s going for, and how we are going to try to regulate it going forward."
"And I do support those people who are calling for some kind of pause."
"I know that’s controversial, and people say, Trump says, ‘We can’t possibly pause because whoever wins AI wins.’"
"Well, I’d love to know what exactly we’re winning."
"And I would like to remind governments that most voters probably don’t want to be dead — not overnight, anyway."
"Therefore, having a pause, looking again at things like the data centres causing so much concern up and down the country because they are massive users of energy and water, we need to think about this stuff before we just rush in there madly."
"And I think we can take some learning from what’s happened with things like climate-change agreements and nuclear agreements, which have been international agreements where we’re often told this is going to be impossible."
"But actually, you had Reagan and Gorbachev getting together to look at how we can try to have at least some controls over nuclear weapons."
"We need that same degree of political will on this, I think."
My view: Her argument is not that AI has no benefits, but that its development is being driven at breakneck speed by a tiny number of immensely powerful companies, with the public expected to trust them after the fact.
The extinction-risk figures may be contested, but the immediate questions are real: who owns the systems, who profits from them, whose jobs and data are being used, and who pays for the enormous demands on energy and water?
Calling for a pause is not anti-technology. It is a demand for democratic control before private firms make irreversible decisions for everyone else. We managed international agreements on nuclear weapons and climate because the risks crossed borders. AI deserves the same seriousness - before “winning” becomes more important than protecting people.