Risk and Harm

Abstract

We examine the ideological differences in the debate surrounding large language models (LLMs) and AI regulation, focusing on the contrasting positions of the Future of Life Institute (FLI) and the Distributed AI Research (DAIR) institute. The study employs a humanistic HCI methodology, applying narrative theory to HCI-related topics and analyzing the political differences between FLI and DAIR, as they are brought to bear on research on LLMs. Two conceptual lenses, “existential risk” and “ongoing harm,” are applied to reveal differing perspectives on AI's societal and cultural significance. Adopting a longtermist perspective, FLI prioritizes preventing existential risks, whereas DAIR emphasizes addressing ongoing harm and human rights violations. The analysis further discusses these organizations’ stances on risk priorities, AI regulation, and attribution of responsibility, ultimately revealing the diverse ideological underpinnings of the AI and LLMs debate. Our analysis highlights the need for more studies of longtermism's impact on vulnerable populations, and we urge HCI researchers to consider the subtle yet significant differences in the discourse on LLMs.