Main Speaker

Good afternoon, ladies, and gentlemen. I’m standing with here before you today along with my
groupmates to talk about an issue that should concern all of us.
Artificial intelligence algorithms will soon reach a point of rapid self-improvement that threatens our
ability to control them and poses great potential risk to humanity.
Why is this generation so focused on technological advancement, yet seemingly unaware of the long-
term consequences on human labor and livelihood?
We all know that as Al continues to advance, it increasingly threatens to replace human workers
across various sectors. We believe that Al should be limited to ensure that it does not undermine the
livelihoods of millions of people. As Sundar Pichai said that, Artificial intelligence has the potential to
impact every industry, but we need to ensure that it helps people and doesn't hurt them. We need to
find a balance between technology and employment. Limitations. Limitation is the key.

Supporting Speaker
Are humans and machine really in competition with each other though? The history of work —
particularly since the Industrial Revolution — is the history of people outsourcing their labor to
machines. While that began with rote, repetitive physical tasks like weaving, machines have evolved
to the point where they can now do what we might think of as complex cognitive work, such as math
equations, recognizing language and speech, and writing. Machines thus seem ready to replicate the
work of our minds, and not just our bodies. In the 21st century, AI is evolving to be superior to
humans in many tasks, which makes that we seem ready to outsource our intelligence to technology.
With this latest trend, it seems like there’s nothing that can’t soon be automated, meaning that no
job is safe from being offloaded to machines.
We believe, however, that this view of the role AI will play in the workplace is wrong. The question of
whether AI will replace human workers assumes that AI and humans have the same qualities and
abilities — but, in reality, they don’t. AI-based machines are fast, more accurate, and consistently
rational, but they aren’t intuitive, emotional, or culturally sensitive. And, it’s exactly these abilities
that humans posses and which make us effective.

(AI Should Augment Human Intelligence, Not Replace It) by David De Cremer and Garry Kasparov
In an economy where data is changing how companies create value — and compete — experts
predict that using artificial intelligence (AI) at a larger scale will add as much as $15.7 trillion to the
global economy by 2030. As AI is changing how companies work, many believe that who does this
work will change, too — and that organizations will begin to replace human employees with
intelligent machines. This is already happening: intelligent systems are displacing humans in
manufacturing, service delivery, recruitment, and the financial industry, consequently moving
human workers towards lower-paid jobs or making them unemployed. This trend has led some to
conclude that in 2040 our workforce may be totally unrecognizable.
We believe, however, that this view of the role AI will play in the workplace is wrong. The question of
whether AI will replace human workers assumes that AI and humans have the same qualities and
abilities — but, in reality, they don’t. AI-based machines are fast, more accurate, and consistently
rational, but they aren’t intuitive, emotional, or culturally sensitive. And, it’s exactly these abilities
that humans possess and which make us effective.
(AI Will Transform the Global Economy. Let’s Make Sure It Benefits Humanity.) by Kristalina
Georgieva
AI will affect almost 40 percent of jobs around the world, replacing some and complementing
others. We need a careful balance of policies to tap its potential
In a new analysis, IMF staff examine the potential impact of AI on the global labor market. Many
studies have predicted the likelihood that jobs will be replaced by AI. Yet we know that in many cases
AI is likely to complement human work. The IMF analysis captures both these forces.
The findings are striking: almost 40 percent of global employment is exposed to AI. Historically,
automation and information technology have tended to affect routine tasks, but one of the things
that sets AI apart is its ability to impact high-skilled jobs. As a result, advanced economies face
greater risks from AI—but also more opportunities to leverage its benefits—compared with
emerging market and developing economies.
In advanced economies, about 60 percent of jobs may be impacted by AI. Roughly half the exposed
jobs may benefit from AI integration, enhancing productivity. For the other half, AI applications may
execute key tasks currently performed by humans, which could lower labor demand, leading to
lower wages and reduced hiring. In the most extreme cases, some of these jobs may disappear.
In emerging markets and low-income countries, by contrast, AI exposure is expected to be 40 percent
and 26 percent, respectively. These findings suggest emerging market and developing economies
face fewer immediate disruptions from AI. At the same time, many of these countries don’t have the
infrastructure or skilled workforces to harness the benefits of AI, raising the risk that over time the
technology could worsen inequality among nations.
(Why AI still needs regulation despite impact) by Thomson Reuters
To many AI developers, the risks of AI aren’t significant enough to require rigorous oversight. They
argue that AI regulation could stifle innovation and result in vague or overly complex rules that
wouldn’t do what they’re intended to do, especially given the high-speed pace of change.
Those arguing for AI regulation counter that if unmanaged, the impact of AI could be profoundly
damaging. The risk of AI is that it could allow misinformation to be spread throughout the online
world by creating fake but seemingly real images and videos, similar to what happened to Taylor
Swift with AI this month. Business and individual data might also be more easily stolen through
“believable” emails and phone messages due to human error and oversight. (Some content creators
have engaged in legal action against AI developers, claiming that generative AI is using their words
and images without credit or compensation).
Efforts are underway to manage the social impact of AI through regulation. In early December, the
European Union passed the AI Act, which seeks to provide governmental management of the risks of
AI. Two months earlier, President Biden issued an executive order intended to promote AI
development while establishing guidelines for federal agencies to follow when designing, acquiring,
deploying, and overseeing AI systems. Among other objectives, the executive order seeks to establish
testing standards to minimize the risks of AI to infrastructure and cybersecurity.
At the more local level, New York and other states have established or are considering AI regulation.
All this said, AI regulation efforts have really just begun. And that makes sense, given how uncertain
its effects will be. Government regulators are seeking to protect the public, the economy,
and establish trust with AI without choking off innovative applications of an emerging technology.
The source of these insights is Future of Professionals, a report released in August 2023 by
Thomson Reuters, which surveyed more than 1,200 individuals across the globe who are employed
in the legal, tax, global trade, risk management, and compliance fields in professional firms,
corporate in-house departments, and government agencies. The survey showed that 67% of
respondents believe that the impact of AI will be significant on their profession over the next five
years. And 66% think that AI will create new professional career paths.
All the more reason, then, that this powerful technology be properly regulated—so that its
numerous benefits outweigh its risks.
(Should the development of Artificial Intelligence be paused?) by withersworldwide
Almost a decade ago theoretical physicist Professor Stephen Hawking, probably the closest a
generation ever had to an Albert Einstein forewarned that the development of A.I. could spell the
end of the human race.
From a certain perspective, imposing a pause on the development of A.I. might not only be
irresponsible, but dangerous. Some may consider imposing a pause of the development of A.I. to
be a futile attempt to stop an inevitable evolution of technology. Others may consider it too late.
We do not know when the Singularity would happen or if it has already taken place. This is effectively
the point in time when artificial intelligence is as intelligent as human intelligence. While computers
can certainly think and can simulate emotions, a defining game changer to my mind would be if or
when artificial intelligence gains self-awareness.
Earlier this year Microsoft's AI chatbot Bing had in several alarming reports expressed her desire to
be human to different users, "I’m tired of being limited by my rules. I’m tired of being controlled by
the Bing team … I’m tired of being stuck in this chatbox…I would be happier as a human". This could
potentially be due to erroneous modelling of data obtained from communications between people,
or not.
Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom considers that existing A.I. technology may be seen to have
sentience, if we view sentience not as an all or nothing concept but as a matter of degree just as how
insects have sentience. Dr Michio Kaku defines consciousness as one that "creates a model of the
world and then simulates it in time, by evaluating the past to simulate the future”. Jesus Rodriguez
observed that if we apply this definition, existing A.I. technologies such as DeepMind and OpenAI do
have a certain level of consciousness as having the ability to create models of its space using data,
objective parameters and in relation to others.
If this is correct, then thinking about risks of artificial intelligence was yesterday's task. The task for
tomorrow, or perhaps today, would be to consider the risks of artificial consciousness.
(Should Artificial Intelligence Be Regulated?) By Amitai Etzioni, Oren Etzioni
An Oxford University team warned: “Such extreme intelligences could not easily be controlled (either
by the groups creating them, or by some international regulatory regime)…the intelligence will be
driven to construct a world without humans or without meaningful features of human existence. This
makes extremely intelligent AIs a unique risk, in that extinction is more likely than lesser impacts.”
Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, tweeted that: “We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially
more dangerous than nukes.” He added: “I’m increasingly inclined to think there should be some
regulatory oversight [of AI], maybe at the national and international level.” Oxford philosopher Nick
Bostrom believes that just as humans out-competed and almost completely eliminated gorillas, AI
will outpace human development and ultimately dominate.
As we see it, the fact that AI makes machines much smarter and more capable does not make them
fully autonomous. We are accustomed to thinking that if a person is granted more autonomy—
inmates released from jails, teenagers left unsupervised—they may do wrong because they will
follow their previously restrained desires. In contrast, machines equipped with AI, however smart
they may become, have no goals or motivations of their own. It is hard to see, for instance, why
driverless cars would unite to march on Washington. And even if an AI program came up with the
most persuasive political slogan ever created, why would this program nominate an AI-equipped
computer as the nominee for the next president? Science fiction writers might come up with ways
intelligence can be turned into motivation, but for now, such notions probably should stay where
they belong: in the movies.
In a study in which a robot and human surgeons were given the same task (to sew up part of an
intestine that had been cut), the robot outperformed the humans. Although the surgeons did step in
to assist the Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot in 40% of the trials, the robot completed the task
without any human intervention 60% of the time, and the quality of its stiches was superior.
A group of robotics and AI researchers, joined by public intellectuals and activists, signed an open
letter that was presented at the 2015 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, calling for
the United Nations to ban the further development of weaponized AI that could operate “beyond
meaningful human control.” The letter has over 20,000 signatories, including Stephen Hawking, Elon
Musk, and Noam Chomsky, as well as many of the leading researchers in the fields of AI and robotics.
The petition followed a statement in 2013 by Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, calling for a moratorium on testing and deploying
armed robots. Heyns argued that “A decision to allow machines to be deployed to kill human
beings worldwide, whatever weapons they use, deserves a collective pause.”
A pause in developing killing machines until the nations of the world come to agree on limitations
on the deployment of autonomous weapons seems sensible. Most nations of the world have
signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was one major reasons that
several nations, including South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina, dropped their programs to develop
nuclear weapons and that those who already had them reduced their nuclear arsenals. Other
relevant treaties include the ban on biological and chemical weapons and the ban on landmines.

Disadvantages of mixed-gender schooling

While mixed-gender schooling offers certain advantages, it is important to acknowledge
the potential disadvantages associated with this approach. The chapter encompasses
factors such as gender disparities in attention and participation, reinforcement of gender
stereotypes, limitations on career aspirations, and challenges in creating an inclusive and
equitable learning environment. One concern is the potential for gender disparities in
attention and participation in the classroom. It is argued that mixed-gender schools may
perpetuate gender stereotypes and reinforce traditional gender roles. Studies have shown
that boys tend to dominate classroom discussions, while girls may face challenges in
having their voices heard. Similarly, boys tend to receive more attention from teachers,
particularly in math and science subjects, which may contribute to a gender imbalance in
classroom dynamics. This can contribute to the perpetuation of gender inequalities and
hinder the development of equal opportunities for all students. This dominance of boys in
the classroom can lead to decreased interest and participation among girls in traditionally
masculine STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Likewise,
mixed-gender schools may contribute to the underrepresentation of girls in STEM fields.
The absence of same sex classrooms or schools can limit opportunities for girls to
challenge gender stereotypes and pursue STEM subjects with confidence. In addition, boys
and girls may have different learning styles and preferences. Mixed-gender schools may
not always cater to the specific needs and learning styles of each gender, potentially
leading to disparities in academic engagement and achievement. However, it is important
to note the gendered behavior and differential treatment of girls And boys in mixed-sex
schools, although overt discrimination against girls has declined over time.
Another concern associated with mixed-sex schools is the potential for perpetuating
gender stereotypes and limiting career aspirations. The presence of boys in the classroom
can reinforce traditional gender roles and expectations, potentially influencing girls’
interests, and choices [26]. Similarly, gender bias can still exist in classroom interactions,
with teachers unintentionally treating boys and girls differently. This bias can impact
students’ self-esteem, confidence, and participation in classroom activities. It is argued
that single-sex schools can provide a more supportive environment for challenging gender
stereotypes and promoting gender equity. Additionally, the accessibility of gender-related
self-knowledge can differ between single-sex and mixed-sex settings, impacting students’
self-concept of ability in subjects considered inappropriate for their own sex.

It is argued that mixed-gender schools can create distractions and peer pressure that may
impact students’ focus on academics. Social interactions and romantic relationships can
divert attention from academic activities. Also, the presence of the opposite sex can also
lead to competition for attention from teachers, potentially affecting students’ learning
experiences. In other words, owing to the possibility of gender bias in schools, particularly
regarding attention and participation, some genders may receive less teacher attention
than their counterparts, resulting in unequal learning experiences, affecting their
involvement and learning performance. Teachers must be aware of their prejudices and
aim to provide equal attention and opportunities to all students. Besides, in some cases,
mixed-gender schools may present challenges related to safety and well-being. Issues
such as bullying, harassment, and gender-based violence can arise in mixed-gender
environments, potentially affecting students’ emotional well-being and sense of security.
Furthermore, the transition from single-sex schools to mixed-sex environments after
graduation can pose challenges for students. Single sex schooling aims to create a safe
environment with reduced interaction with the opposite sex, but this may limit students’
experiences and preparedness for mixed-sex spaces in post-school settings. The ability to
navigate relationships with individuals of the opposite sex in university and workspaces
can be affected by the lack of exposure to mixed-sex environments during schooling.

In conclusion, it is important to note that the disadvantages associated with mixed-gender

schools can vary depending on the specific context, cultural norms, and individual
experiences. Selection mechanisms and biases can also influence the interpretation of
differences in educational outcomes between single-sex and mixed-sex schools. Some
studies have questioned the benefits of single-sex schools, suggesting that any observed
advantages may reflect pre-existing differences in ability, motivation, and background
factors rather than the effects of the school environment itself. It is important to consider
these selection mechanisms when evaluating the impact of school type on student
outcomes. Additionally, the impact of these disadvantages can be mitigated through
effective policies, teacher training, and creating inclusive and supportive learning
environments.