AI has potential benefits and potential risks. AI may be able to advance science and find solutions for serious problems:
Demis Hassabis of
DeepMind hopes to "solve intelligence, and then use that to solve everything else". However, as the use of AI has become widespread, several unintended consequences and risks have been identified. In-production systems can sometimes not factor ethics and bias into their AI training processes, especially when the AI algorithms are inherently unexplainable in deep learning.
Risks and harm Privacy and copyright Machine learning algorithms require large amounts of data. The techniques used to acquire this data have raised concerns about
privacy,
surveillance and
copyright. AI-powered devices and services, such as virtual assistants and IoT products, continuously collect personal information, raising concerns about intrusive data gathering and unauthorized access by third parties. The loss of privacy is further exacerbated by AI's ability to process and combine vast amounts of data, potentially leading to a surveillance society where individual activities are constantly monitored and analyzed without adequate safeguards or transparency. Sensitive user data collected may include online activity records, geolocation data, video, or audio. For example, in order to build
speech recognition algorithms,
Amazon has recorded millions of private conversations and allowed
temporary workers to listen to and transcribe some of them. Opinions about this widespread surveillance range from those who see it as a
necessary evil to those for whom it is clearly
unethical and a violation of the
right to privacy. AI developers argue that this is the only way to deliver valuable applications and have developed several techniques that attempt to preserve privacy while still obtaining the data, such as
data aggregation,
de-identification and
differential privacy. Since 2016, some privacy experts, such as
Cynthia Dwork, have begun to view privacy in terms of
fairness.
Brian Christian wrote that experts have pivoted "from the question of 'what they know' to the question of 'what they're doing with it'." Generative AI is often trained on unlicensed copyrighted works, including in domains such as images or computer code; the output is then used under the rationale of "
fair use". Experts disagree about how well and under what circumstances this rationale will hold up in courts of law; relevant factors may include "the purpose and character of the use of the copyrighted work" and "the effect upon the potential market for the copyrighted work". Website owners can indicate that they do not want their content scraped via a "
robots.txt" file. However, some companies will scrape content regardless because the robots.txt file has no real authority. In 2023, leading authors (including
John Grisham and
Jonathan Franzen) sued AI companies for using their work to train generative AI. Another discussed approach is to envision a separate
sui generis system of protection for creations generated by AI to ensure fair attribution and compensation for human authors.
Dominance by tech giants The commercial AI scene is dominated by
Big Tech companies such as
Alphabet Inc.,
Amazon,
Apple Inc.,
Meta Platforms, and
Microsoft. Some of these players already own the vast majority of existing
cloud infrastructure and
computing power from
data centers, allowing them to entrench further in the marketplace.
Power needs and environmental impacts Technology companies have built electricity and artificial intelligence infrastructure to facilitate the AI boom of the 2020s. A 2025 report from the consulting firm
McKinsey & Company estimated that by 2030, $2.7 trillion would be invested into AI infrastructure and data centers in the US, surpassing World War II's
Manhattan Project every month. In January 2024, the
International Energy Agency (IEA) released
Electricity 2024, Analysis and Forecast to 2026. This is the first IEA report to make projections for data centers and power consumption by AI and cryptocurrency. The report states that power demand for these uses might double by 2026, with the additional power consumption equaling that of Japan. Power consumption by AI is responsible for an increase in fossil fuel use, and has delayed closings of obsolete, carbon-emitting coal energy facilities. A ChatGPT search involves the use of 10 times the electrical energy as a Google search. A 2024
Goldman Sachs Research Paper,
AI Data Centers and the Coming US Power Demand Surge, found "US power demand (is) likely to experience growth not seen in a generation...." and forecasts that, by 2030, US data centers will consume 8% of US power, as opposed to 3% in 2022, presaging growth for the electrical power generation industry by a variety of means. Data centers' need for more and more electrical power is such that they might max out the electrical grid. The Big Tech companies counter that AI can be used to maximize the utilization of the grid by all. In 2024,
The Wall Street Journal reported that big AI companies have begun negotiations with the US nuclear power providers to provide electricity to the data centers. In March 2024 Amazon purchased a Pennsylvania nuclear-powered data center for US$650 million. In September 2024,
Microsoft announced an agreement with
Constellation Energy to re-open the
Three Mile Island nuclear power plant to provide Microsoft with 100% of all electric power produced by the plant for 20 years. Reopening the plant, which suffered a partial nuclear meltdown of its Unit 2 reactor in 1979, will require Constellation to get through strict regulatory processes which will include extensive safety scrutiny from the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If approved (this will be the first ever US re-commissioning of a nuclear plant), over 835 megawatts of power – enough for 800,000 homes – of energy will be produced. The cost for re-opening and upgrading is estimated at US$1.6 billion and is dependent on tax breaks for nuclear power contained in the 2022 US
Inflation Reduction Act. As of 2024, the US government and the state of Michigan have been investing almost US$2 billion to reopen the
Palisades Nuclear reactor on Lake Michigan. Closed since 2022, the plant was planned to be reopened in October 2025. After the last approval in September 2023,
Taiwan suspended the approval of data centers north of
Taoyuan with a capacity of more than 5 MW in 2024, due to power supply shortages. Taiwan aims to
phase out nuclear power by 2025. On 1 November 2024, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected an application submitted by
Talen Energy for approval to supply some electricity from the nuclear power station
Susquehanna to Amazon's data center. According to the Commission Chairman
Willie L. Phillips, it is a burden on the electricity grid as well as a significant cost shifting concern to households and other business sectors.
Misinformation YouTube,
Facebook and others use
recommender systems to guide users to more content. These AI programs were given the goal of
maximizing user engagement (that is, the only goal was to keep people watching). The AI learned that users tended to choose
misinformation,
conspiracy theories, and extreme
partisan content, and, to keep them watching, the AI recommended more of it. Users also tended to watch more content on the same subject, so the AI led people into
filter bubbles where they received multiple versions of the same misinformation. This convinced many users that the misinformation was true, and ultimately undermined trust in institutions, the media and the government. The AI program had correctly learned to maximize its goal, but the result was harmful to society. After the U.S. election in 2016, major technology companies took some steps to mitigate the problem. In the early 2020s,
generative AI began to create images, audio, and texts that are virtually indistinguishable from real photographs, recordings, or human writing, while realistic AI-generated videos became feasible in the mid-2020s. It is possible for bad actors to use this technology to create massive amounts of misinformation or propaganda; one such potential malicious use is deepfakes for
computational propaganda. AI pioneer and Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist
Geoffrey Hinton expressed concern about AI enabling "authoritarian leaders to manipulate their electorates" on a large scale, among other risks. The ability to influence electorates has been proved in at least one study. This same study shows more inaccurate statements from the models when they advocate for candidates of the political right. AI researchers at
Microsoft,
OpenAI, universities and other organisations have suggested using "
personhood credentials" as a way to overcome online deception enabled by AI models.
Algorithmic bias and fairness Machine learning applications can be
biased if they learn from biased data. The developers may not be aware that the bias exists. Discriminatory behavior by some LLMs can be observed in their output. Bias can be introduced by the way
training data is selected and by the way a model is deployed. If a biased algorithm is used to make decisions that can seriously
harm people (as it can in
medicine,
finance,
recruitment,
housing or
policing) then the algorithm may cause
discrimination. The field of
fairness studies how to prevent harms from algorithmic biases. On 28 June 2015,
Google Photos's new image labeling feature mistakenly identified Jacky Alcine and a friend as "gorillas" because they were black. The system was trained on a dataset that contained very few images of black people, a problem called "sample size disparity". Google "fixed" this problem by preventing the system from labelling
anything as a "gorilla". Eight years later, in 2023, Google Photos still could not identify a gorilla, and neither could similar products from Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.
COMPAS is a commercial program widely used by
U.S. courts to assess the likelihood of a
defendant becoming a
recidivist. In 2016,
Julia Angwin at
ProPublica discovered that COMPAS exhibited racial bias, despite the fact that the program was not told the races of the defendants. Although the error rate for both whites and blacks was calibrated equal at exactly 61%, the errors for each race were different—the system consistently overestimated the chance that a black person would re-offend and would underestimate the chance that a white person would not re-offend. In 2017, several researchers showed that it was mathematically impossible for COMPAS to accommodate all possible measures of fairness when the base rates of re-offense were different for whites and blacks in the data. A program can make biased decisions even if the data does not explicitly mention a problematic feature (such as "race" or "gender"). The feature will correlate with other features (like "address", "shopping history" or "first name"), and the program will make the same decisions based on these features as it would on "race" or "gender". Moritz Hardt said "the most robust fact in this research area is that fairness through blindness doesn't work." Criticism of COMPAS highlighted that machine learning models are designed to make "predictions" that are only valid if we assume that the future will resemble the past. If they are trained on data that includes the results of racist decisions in the past, machine learning models must predict that racist decisions will be made in the future. If an application then uses these predictions as
recommendations, some of these "recommendations" will likely be racist. Thus, machine learning is not well suited to help make decisions in areas where there is hope that the future will be
better than the past. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Bias and unfairness may go undetected because the developers are overwhelmingly white and male: among AI engineers, about 4% are black and 20% are women. There are various conflicting definitions and mathematical models of fairness. These notions depend on ethical assumptions, and are influenced by beliefs about society. One broad category is
distributive fairness, which focuses on the outcomes, often identifying groups and seeking to compensate for statistical disparities. Representational fairness tries to ensure that AI systems do not reinforce negative
stereotypes or render certain groups invisible. Procedural fairness focuses on the decision process rather than the outcome. The most relevant notions of fairness may depend on the context, notably the type of AI application and the stakeholders. The subjectivity in the notions of bias and fairness makes it difficult for companies to operationalize them. Having access to sensitive attributes such as race or gender is also considered by many AI ethicists to be necessary in order to compensate for biases, but it may conflict with
anti-discrimination laws. At the 2022
ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency a paper reported that a CLIP‑based (
Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training) robotic system reproduced harmful gender‑ and race‑linked stereotypes in a simulated manipulation task. The authors recommended robot‑learning methods which physically manifest such harms be "paused, reworked, or even wound down when appropriate, until outcomes can be proven safe, effective, and just."
Lack of transparency Many AI systems are so complex that their designers cannot explain how they reach their decisions. Particularly with
deep neural networks, in which there are many non-
linear relationships between inputs and outputs. But some popular explainability techniques exist. It is impossible to be certain that a program is operating correctly if no one knows how exactly it works. There have been many cases where a machine learning program passed rigorous tests, but nevertheless learned something different than what the programmers intended. For example, a system that could identify skin diseases better than medical professionals was found to actually have a strong tendency to classify images with a
ruler as "cancerous", because pictures of malignancies typically include a ruler to show the scale. Another machine learning system designed to help effectively allocate medical resources was found to classify patients with asthma as being at "low risk" of dying from pneumonia. Having asthma is actually a severe risk factor, but since the patients having asthma would usually get much more medical care, they were relatively unlikely to die according to the training data. The correlation between asthma and low risk of dying from pneumonia was real, but misleading. People who have been harmed by an algorithm's decision have a right to an explanation. Doctors, for example, are expected to clearly and completely explain to their colleagues the reasoning behind any decision they make. Early drafts of the European Union's
General Data Protection Regulation in 2016 included an explicit statement that this right exists. Industry experts noted that this is an unsolved problem with no solution in sight. Regulators argued that nevertheless the harm is real: if the problem has no solution, the tools should not be used.
DARPA established the
XAI ("Explainable Artificial Intelligence") program in 2014 to try to solve these problems. Several approaches aim to address the transparency problem. SHAP enables to visualise the contribution of each feature to the output. LIME can locally approximate a model's outputs with a simpler, interpretable model.
Multitask learning provides a large number of outputs in addition to the target classification. These other outputs can help developers deduce what the network has learned.
Deconvolution,
DeepDream and other
generative methods can allow developers to see what different layers of a deep network for computer vision have learned, and produce output that can suggest what the network is learning. For
generative pre-trained transformers,
Anthropic developed a technique based on
dictionary learning that associates patterns of neuron activations with human-understandable concepts.
Bad actors and weaponized AI Artificial intelligence provides a number of tools that are useful to
bad actors, such as
authoritarian governments,
terrorists,
criminals or
rogue states. A lethal autonomous weapon is a machine that locates, selects and engages human targets without human supervision. Widely available AI tools can be used by bad actors to develop inexpensive autonomous weapons and, if produced at scale, they are potentially
weapons of mass destruction. Even when used in conventional warfare, they currently cannot reliably choose targets and could potentially
kill an innocent person. In 2014, 30 nations (including China) supported a ban on autonomous weapons under the
United Nations'
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, however the
United States and others disagreed. By 2015, over fifty countries were reported to be researching battlefield robots. AI tools make it easier for authoritarian governments to efficiently control their citizens in several ways.
Face and
voice recognition allow widespread
surveillance.
Machine learning, operating this data, can
classify potential enemies of the state and prevent them from hiding.
Recommendation systems can precisely target
propaganda and
misinformation for maximum effect.
Deepfakes and
generative AI aid in producing misinformation. Advanced AI can make authoritarian
centralized decision-making more competitive than liberal and decentralized systems such as
markets. It lowers the cost and difficulty of
digital warfare and
advanced spyware. All these technologies have been available since 2020 or earlier—AI
facial recognition systems are already being used for
mass surveillance in China. There are many other ways in which AI is expected to help bad actors, some of which can not be foreseen. For example, machine-learning AI is able to design tens of thousands of toxic molecules in a matter of hours.
Technological unemployment Economists have frequently highlighted the risks of redundancies from AI, and speculated about unemployment if there is no adequate social policy for full employment. In the past, technology has tended to increase rather than reduce total employment, but economists acknowledge that "we're in uncharted territory" with AI. A survey of economists showed disagreement about whether the increasing use of robots and AI will cause a substantial increase in long-term
unemployment, but they generally agree that it could be a net benefit if
productivity gains are
redistributed. Risk estimates vary; for example, in the 2010s, Michael Osborne and
Carl Benedikt Frey estimated 47% of U.S. jobs are at "high risk" of potential automation, while an OECD report classified only 9% of U.S. jobs as "high risk". The methodology of speculating about future employment levels has been criticised as lacking evidential foundation, and for implying that technology, rather than social policy, creates unemployment, as opposed to redundancies. In April 2023, it was reported that 70% of the jobs for Chinese video game illustrators had been eliminated by generative artificial intelligence. Early-career workers showed decreasing
employment rates in some AI-exposed occupations. Unlike previous waves of automation, many middle-class jobs may be eliminated by artificial intelligence;
The Economist stated in 2015 that "the worry that AI could do to white-collar jobs what steam power did to blue-collar ones during the Industrial Revolution" is "worth taking seriously". Jobs at extreme risk range from
paralegals to fast food cooks, while job demand is likely to increase for care-related professions ranging from personal healthcare to the clergy. In July 2025,
Ford CEO
Jim Farley predicted that "artificial intelligence is going to replace literally half of all
white-collar workers in the U.S." From the early days of the development of artificial intelligence, there have been arguments, for example, those put forward by
Joseph Weizenbaum, about whether tasks that can be done by computers actually should be done by them, given the difference between computers and humans, and between quantitative calculation and qualitative, value-based judgement.
Substitution for human–human interaction With the increase of
loneliness in the early 21st century, AI is sometimes identified as a potential source of relief to this problem. It would be possible, via
human-like qualities built into AI products, for individuals to assume that this need can be met by artificial means. In some cases, people approach artificial intelligence for companionship when they believe that they would not find acceptance due to feeling outcast. Examples of harm coming to humans from advanced
chatbots have been reported in courts in the United States, with AI companies accused of creating products that endanger humans through
emotional confusion or deception.
Existential risk Recent public debates in artificial intelligence have increasingly focused on its broader societal and ethical implications. It has been argued AI will become so powerful that humanity may irreversibly lose control of it. This could, as physicist
Stephen Hawking stated, "
spell the end of the human race". This scenario has been common in science fiction, when a computer or robot suddenly develops a human-like "self-awareness" (or "sentience" or "consciousness") and becomes a malevolent character. These sci-fi scenarios are misleading in several ways. First, AI does not require human-like
sentience to be an existential risk. Modern AI programs are given specific goals and use learning and intelligence to achieve them. Philosopher
Nick Bostrom argued that if one gives
almost any goal to a sufficiently powerful AI, it may choose to destroy humanity to achieve it (he used the example of an
automated paperclip factory that destroys the world to get more iron for paperclips).
Stuart Russell gives the example of household robot that tries to find a way to kill its owner to prevent it from being unplugged, reasoning that "you can't fetch the coffee if you're dead." In order to be safe for humanity, a
superintelligence would have to be genuinely
aligned with humanity's morality and values so that it is "fundamentally on our side". Second,
Yuval Noah Harari argues that AI does not require a robot body or physical control to pose an existential risk. The essential parts of civilization are not physical. Things like
ideologies,
law,
government,
money and the
economy are built on
language; they exist because there are stories that billions of people believe. The current prevalence of
misinformation suggests that an AI could use language to convince people to believe anything, even to take actions that are destructive. Geoffrey Hinton said in 2025 that
modern AI is particularly "good at persuasion" and getting better all the time. He asks "Suppose you wanted to invade the capital of the US. Do you have to go there and do it yourself? No. You just have to be good at persuasion." The opinions amongst experts and industry insiders are mixed, with sizable fractions both concerned and unconcerned by risk from eventual superintelligent AI. Personalities such as Stephen Hawking,
Bill Gates, and
Elon Musk, as well as AI pioneers such as
Geoffrey Hinton,
Yoshua Bengio,
Stuart Russell,
Demis Hassabis, and
Sam Altman, have expressed concerns about existential risk from AI. In May 2023, Geoffrey Hinton announced his resignation from Google in order to be able to "freely speak out about the risks of AI" without "considering how this impacts Google". He notably mentioned risks of an
AI takeover, and stressed that in order to avoid the worst outcomes, establishing safety guidelines will require cooperation among those competing in use of AI. In 2023, many leading AI experts endorsed
the joint statement that "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war". Some other researchers were more optimistic. AI pioneer
Jürgen Schmidhuber did not sign the joint statement, emphasising that in 95% of all cases, AI research is about making "human lives longer and healthier and easier." While the tools that are now being used to improve lives can also be used by bad actors, "they can also be used against the bad actors."
Andrew Ng also argued that "it's a mistake to fall for the doomsday hype on AI—and that regulators who do will only benefit vested interests."
Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner, disagreed with the idea that AI will subordinate humans "simply because they are smarter, let alone destroy [us]", "scoff[ing] at his peers' dystopian scenarios of supercharged misinformation and even, eventually, human extinction." In contrast, he claimed that "intelligent machines will usher in a new renaissance for humanity, a new era of enlightenment." In the early 2010s, experts argued that the risks are too distant in the future to warrant research or that humans will be valuable from the perspective of a superintelligent machine. However, after 2016, the study of current and future risks and possible solutions became a serious area of research.
Ethical machines and alignment Friendly AI are machines that have been designed from the beginning to minimize risks and to make choices that benefit humans.
Eliezer Yudkowsky, who coined the term, argues that developing friendly AI should be a higher research priority: it may require a large investment and it must be completed before AI becomes an existential risk. Machines with intelligence have the potential to use their intelligence to make ethical decisions. The field of machine ethics provides machines with ethical principles and procedures for resolving ethical dilemmas. The field of machine ethics is also called computational morality, and was founded at an
AAAI symposium in 2005. Other approaches include
Wendell Wallach's "artificial moral agents" and
Stuart J. Russell's
three principles for developing provably beneficial machines.
Open source Active organizations in the AI open-source community include
Hugging Face,
Google,
EleutherAI and
Meta. Various AI models, such as
Llama 2,
Mistral or
Stable Diffusion, have been made open-weight, meaning that their architecture and trained parameters (the "weights") are publicly available. Open-weight models can be freely
fine-tuned, which allows companies to specialize them with their own data and for their own use-case. Open-weight models are useful for research and innovation but can also be misused. Since they can be fine-tuned, any built-in security measure, such as objecting to harmful requests, can be trained away until it becomes ineffective. Some researchers warn that future AI models may develop dangerous capabilities (such as the potential to drastically facilitate
bioterrorism) and that once released on the Internet, they cannot be deleted everywhere if needed. They recommend pre-release audits and cost-benefit analyses.
Frameworks Artificial intelligence projects can be guided by ethical considerations during the design, development, and implementation of an AI system. An AI framework such as the Care and Act Framework, developed by the
Alan Turing Institute and based on the SUM values, outlines four main ethical dimensions, defined as follows: •
Respect the dignity of individual people •
Connect with other people sincerely, openly, and inclusively •
Care for the wellbeing of everyone •
Protect social values, justice, and the public interest Other developments in ethical frameworks include those decided upon during the
Asilomar Conference, the Montreal Declaration for Responsible AI, and the IEEE's Ethics of Autonomous Systems initiative, among others; however, these principles are not without criticism, especially regarding the people chosen to contribute to these frameworks. Promotion of the wellbeing of the people and communities that these technologies affect requires consideration of the social and ethical implications at all stages of AI system design, development and implementation, and collaboration between job roles such as data scientists, product managers, data engineers, domain experts, and delivery managers. The
UK AI Safety Institute released in 2024 a testing toolset called 'Inspect' for AI safety evaluations available under an MIT open-source licence which is freely available on GitHub and can be improved with third-party packages. It can be used to evaluate AI models in a range of areas including core knowledge, ability to reason, and autonomous capabilities.
Regulation was held in the United Kingdom in November 2023 with a declaration calling for international cooperation. The regulation of artificial intelligence is the development of public sector policies and laws for promoting and regulating AI; it is therefore related to the broader regulation of algorithms. The regulatory and policy landscape for AI is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally. According to AI Index at
Stanford, the annual number of AI-related laws passed in the 127 survey countries jumped from one passed in 2016 to 37 passed in 2022 alone. Between 2016 and 2020, more than 30 countries adopted dedicated strategies for AI. Most EU member states had released national AI strategies, as had
Canada, China, India, Japan, Mauritius, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, U.S., and Vietnam. Others were in the process of elaborating their own AI strategy, including Bangladesh, Malaysia and Tunisia. The
Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence was launched in June 2020, stating a need for AI to be developed in accordance with human rights and democratic values, to ensure public confidence and trust in the technology.
Henry Kissinger,
Eric Schmidt, and
Daniel Huttenlocher published a joint statement in November 2021 calling for a government commission to regulate AI. In 2023, OpenAI leaders published recommendations for the governance of superintelligence, which they believe may happen in less than 10 years. In 2023, the United Nations also launched an advisory body to provide recommendations on AI governance; the body comprises technology company executives, government officials and academics. On 1 August 2024, the EU
Artificial Intelligence Act entered into force, establishing the first comprehensive EU-wide AI regulation. In 2024, the
Council of Europe created the first international legally binding treaty on AI, called the "
Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law". It was adopted by the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other signatories. In a 2022
Ipsos survey, attitudes towards AI varied greatly by country; 78% of Chinese citizens, but only 35% of Americans, agreed that "products and services using AI have more benefits than drawbacks". A 2023
Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 61% of Americans agree, and 22% disagree, that AI poses risks to humanity. In a 2023
Fox News poll, 35% of Americans thought it "very important", and an additional 41% thought it "somewhat important", for the federal government to regulate AI, versus 13% responding "not very important" and 8% responding "not at all important". In November 2023, the first global
AI Safety Summit was held in
Bletchley Park in the UK to discuss the near and far term risks of AI and the possibility of mandatory and voluntary regulatory frameworks. 28 countries including the United States, China, and the European Union issued a declaration at the start of the summit, calling for international co-operation to manage the challenges and risks of artificial intelligence. In May 2024 at the
AI Seoul Summit, 16 global AI tech companies agreed to safety commitments on the development of AI. In March 2026, the
United Nations convened the inaugural meeting of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, a 40-member expert body established under the
Global Digital Compact to produce annual evidence-based reports on AI's societal impacts. == History ==