Antonym: The Societal-Level Risk Edition

Marketing tip: If you can’t sponsor football why not form a small army?

Dear Reader

Shiv Roy speaks for us all with the most 2020s question ever in the image above.

There’s so much dystopian crazy in my newsletter hopper this week that I am befuddled. Words do not fail me, but everything else does.

+ + WARNING + +

An alarming statement was issued by The Center for AI Safety, a San Francisco non-profit, and was signed by renowned AI researchers, including Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis and OpenAI CEO’s Sam Altman.

Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war

Any self-aware supercomputer would take one look at how well stopping nuclear weapons proliferation and global warming is going and chuckle all the way to its inevitable supremacy.

The statement was 22 words long. Its brevity communicated urgency, they said. Many of the signatories are hell-bent on creating AI to save their share prices, but definitely won’t be accused of saying, “You never warned us” when the Boston Dynamics robo-dogs start rounding us up.

But all Antonym readers want to ask whether the statement could have been better written. I asked OrwellEd, the AI bot I set up to judge copy based on Orwell’s Six Rules of Writing:

Picky, picky AI…

ChatGPT also thought removing “societal-scale risk” would improve the statement:

Here's a possible rephrased statement for clarity:

"Ensuring the safety of AI and preventing its potential to cause human extinction should be a top global priority, on par with addressing other large-scale risks like pandemics and nuclear war."

This version emphasizes the importance of preventing the dangers posed by AI and highlights the need for global cooperation to address this issue.

Claude+, the Anthropic rival to ChatGPT, was more concise than ChatGPT’s 32 words:

Mitigating the existential risks posed by advanced AI should be a top global priority, on par with addressing other catastrophic threats such as pandemics, climate change, and nuclear war.

Much better. Now from a word from our robot-overlord sponsor:

Gazprom’s branded fighting units

Speaking of sponsorships… the last time you saw an advert for Gazprom, the Russian enegy company, was probably on the edge of a football pitch at a UEFA football tournament or somesuch.

Now that the firm has been denied this route to publicity, it has diverted to founding to forming private military regiments now fighting in Ukraine. The “sponsorship” package includes corporate swag such as better-than-the-army equipment and rations, regimental badges, and, one presumes, the sanctions-friendly equivalent of Patagonia gilets with the official names of the units, which translate as “Stream” and “Torch”.

The FT’s report is worth the price of a subscription alone.

The super-wealthy energy company has been pitching joining up to its staff, according to the FT.

“They were promised heavenly terms,” said the woman, whose husband declined to volunteer. “A million [roubles] overall. Of course, all smart people laughed at that. But at the same time, many quickly pictured themselves buying a new flat within three months.” Their manager promised that their equipment would be supplied only by Gazprom. “They said: ‘don’t worry, you won’t be getting all that sour cabbage from the army. Everything will be provided by us’,” the woman said.

Gazprom seems to be reluctant to publicise its activities, and…

[…] has never acknowledged involvement in the formation of frontline battalions. In previous years, it was keen to project a traditional western corporate image to its trading partners in Europe, making environmental, social and governance [ESG] pledges and plastering its name across football stadiums through its sponsorship of the Uefa Champions League.

Antonym would love to hear from any ESG consultants working with Gazprom. We have questions. For instance, how is the diversity and inclusion policy being implemented in the “Torch” and “Stream” battle units?

The joy of pitching

Succession’s finalé was the elegant full-stop on the Best TV Ever™.

Of course, there are contrary voices that dare to squeak against Succession – bless them – but they are whistling in the wind… cut to any national newspaper newsroom last Monday:

Editor: Give me 700 words on why Succession is overrated nonsense.
Hack: No.
Editor: Guess I’ll get ChatGPT to do it.
Hack: I’m on it.

Faber has published the scripts from all four series of Succession. The Guardian published an extract of a foreword by the show’s creator, Jesse Armstrong. It’s a lovely account of how the show was conceived and developed. I especially loved this passage that anyone who has ever had to pitch an idea will recognise:

Sometimes a pitch stretches thin and threadbare, the fabric renting as you go, the other party peeping grimly through the holes. Other times, the air thickens, and you can feel the atmosphere in the room turn oxygen-rich as the enthusiasm you are trying to project transforms into an enthusiasm you are actually feeling.

That’s all for this week…

Thank you for reading!

Antony