Readers of the Guardian have responded to a profile of Iason Gabriel, a philosopher and research scientist at Google DeepMind, raising concerns that the ethical direction of artificial intelligence may already be determined by economic and geopolitical pressures rather than philosophical debate.
Economic logic as the real basilisk
Peat Allan of Southampton argued that the most important decision about AI's future may have already been made not by philosophers or engineers, but by the incentives surrounding the technology. 'Hundreds of billions are now being invested because AI promises commercial returns and geopolitical advantage,' he wrote. 'Those pressures are understandable, but they are also quietly determining the future before society has consciously debated where it wants to go.'
Allan drew a parallel to Roko's Basilisk, a 2010 thought experiment about a future super-intelligent AI that punishes those who failed to help create it. 'The real basilisk, I would argue, is not a future machine but today's economic logic,' he stated. 'The compulsion comes not from tomorrow's AI but from today's competition, geopolitical rivalry and the relentless pursuit of returns. We have decided without deciding.'
Neglected opportunities and scarce wisdom
Allan emphasized that the opportunities neglected may prove as important as the technologies created. 'AI could help us live more sustainably, restore ecosystems and improve human wellbeing, or it could simply make us more efficient at pursuing the same extractive model of growth,' he noted. 'Intelligence alone cannot answer that question.' He concluded, 'If intelligence becomes abundant, wisdom may become the scarce resource.'
Google's military contracts and internal dissent
Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at Foxglove, pointed out what he called 'deafening silences' in the profile. He questioned Gabriel's views on Google's growing defence business, including contracts with the Israeli military, and Google's 2025 decision to ditch its ban on AI weaponry. Campbell also raised the case of a colleague who claims he was unfairly sacked after raising concerns internally about these issues.
'These are not isolated incidents,' Campbell wrote. 'Google's apparent retaliation against staff who question the ethics and actions of the company has taken place in both the US and the UK – including at Google DeepMind, the philosopher's place of work.' He noted that when asked about military use of AI, one of DeepMind's founders 'declined to comment other than to say: 'We're going to have more and more difficult questions as this stuff is used in all sorts of ways.''
Philosophical sheen as PR distraction
Campbell argued that the philosophical engagement by big tech companies is nothing more than PR. 'Ultimately, the philosophical sheen that big tech companies like Google or Anthropic are seeking to apply to their business is nothing more than PR: an attempt to distract attention from the everyday harms we know they are causing right now, by pointing to lofty, abstract arguments about the future,' he said. 'It's hard to take these public musings seriously, when they fail to grapple with the real, ethical failings of these firms that are in plain sight.'
Practical concerns about AI and resources
Tony Coghan of London raised a practical question: 'I quote from your article about artificial intelligence: 'Food shortage? Ask the robot.' But what if the food shortage is caused by the robot's need for water? How do we humans assess the robot's response?'
