AI Expert Mo Gawdat Warns Against Having Children Due to AI Risks

Thumbnail Image

The information displayed in the AIM should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries.

Mo Gawdat, former chief business officer at Google X, publicly warned that the rapid advancement and potential existential risks of AI are so severe that prospective parents should delay having children until AI is better controlled, highlighting AI as a major threat to humanity's future.[AI generated]

Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?

The content involves an AI expert's opinion on future risks posed by AI, which could plausibly lead to significant harm, but no actual incident or harm has occurred or is described. Therefore, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it highlights credible potential future harm from AI without reporting a realized incident.[AI generated]
AI principles
SafetyRobustness & digital securityAccountabilityTransparency & explainabilityDemocracy & human autonomyRespect of human rightsHuman wellbeing
Industries
General or personal use
Affected stakeholders
ChildrenGeneral public
Harm types
Physical (death)Public interest
Severity
AI hazard

Articles about this incident or hazard

Thumbnail Image

'Hold off from having kids if you are yet to become a parent,' warns AI expert Mo Gawdat

2023-06-09
Yahoo News UK
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article centers on expert warnings about potential future risks of AI, including existential threats, but does not describe any realized harm or specific event involving an AI system causing injury, rights violations, or other harms. It is a discussion of plausible future risks and societal concerns rather than a report of an AI Incident or a specific AI Hazard event. Therefore, it fits best as Complementary Information, providing context and expert perspectives on AI risks without reporting a concrete incident or hazard.
Thumbnail Image

'Don't bring kids into this world now': AI expert issues chilling warning

2023-06-06
EXPRESS
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The content involves an AI expert's opinion on future risks posed by AI, which could plausibly lead to significant harm, but no actual incident or harm has occurred or is described. Therefore, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it highlights credible potential future harm from AI without reporting a realized incident.
Thumbnail Image

'Hold off from having kids' warns AI expert Mo Gawdat

2023-06-08
Euronews English
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article discusses expert warnings about the potential dangers and existential risks of AI, which are credible concerns about future harm. However, no actual harm or incident involving AI is described. The content is primarily about societal and governance responses and expert perspectives on AI risks, fitting the definition of Complementary Information rather than an AI Incident or AI Hazard.
Thumbnail Image

AI such a threat to humanity folk should stop having kids, says tech guru

2023-06-09
Daily Star
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article discusses the potential dangers of AI as expressed by experts, highlighting the possibility of severe future harm but without any concrete event of harm occurring. The concerns are about existential risks and a 'perfect storm' of threats including AI, but no direct or indirect harm caused by AI systems is reported. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard, reflecting plausible future harm rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.
Thumbnail Image

'Hold off from having kids because of AI,' warns former head of Google's secret projects

2023-06-09
Firstpost
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article centers on expert warnings about the potential future risks of AI, including existential threats, but does not report any actual harm or incident caused by AI systems. The involvement of AI is in the context of possible future dangers rather than realized harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard, as it highlights credible concerns about plausible future harms from AI development and deployment, but no direct or indirect harm has yet occurred as described in the article.