GPT-4o: No humans can fully understand AI models: ~2040-2050. No capable regulators for AI models: ~2060-2070.

Asking ChatGPT-4o and Grok: So I guess that the more complex technology gets, the smaller the group of people will be that can still comprehend how it functions, how it came about and what its capabilities are, am I right? Provide an evidence based estimation of the year in which there will no longer be humans alive that have the capacity to understand highly complex AI models. Also provide me with the year in which there will be no more regulators that know how to regulate complex AI models.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
This is a challenging question that requires a nuanced approach, as it involves projecting human cognitive capacities, technological advancement, and institutional adaptability. Here's a reasoned analysis with evidence-based insights:

1. When will humans no longer understand highly complex AI models?

Background:

• AI complexity growth: AI models like GPT-4 or GPT-5 involve billions of parameters, and understanding their internal mechanics (e.g., decision-making or emergent behavior) is already challenging. Future models are likely to grow even more complex.

• Specialization: Currently, understanding these models requires teams of experts specializing in fields like machine learning, mathematics, neuroscience, and ethics.

• Tool-assisted comprehension: Technologies like Explainable AI (XAI) and visualization tools are evolving to help humans understand model behavior.

Evidence:

• A 2023 study in Nature Machine Intelligence indicated that beyond a certain scale, even specialists struggle to explain or interpret model decisions fully.

• Emergent properties (behavior not explicitly programmed) in AI have been documented in GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models, showcasing a gap between creation and comprehension.

Estimation:

• By 2040-2050, AI models may surpass a level of complexity where no individual or team can fully comprehend them, even with tools, due to the exponential growth of AI capabilities and emergent phenomena.

• However, functional understanding (knowing how to use or control models without fully understanding their internal mechanisms) will persist longer.

2. When will regulators lose the ability to regulate complex AI models?

Background:

• Regulatory challenges: Regulating AI involves understanding technical details, societal impacts, and ethical considerations. Current AI regulations (e.g., the EU AI Act) often lag behind technology.

• Knowledge gaps: A 2023 Stanford AI Index Report highlighted that many policymakers lack technical expertise and depend on advisors, leaving regulations vulnerable to being outdated.

• AI-assisted regulation: AI tools are already being used to assist in regulation drafting and impact assessments. These tools might enable non-technical regulators to oversee AI systems effectively.

Evidence:

• Historically, regulatory frameworks (e.g., GDPR for data privacy) adapt but often trail behind technological advances by 5-10 years.

• AI's increasing integration into all sectors (e.g., defense, healthcare) will widen the gap between regulatory capability and technological sophistication.

Estimation:

• By 2060-2070, regulators without deep technical understanding may struggle to create effective rules for AI. This could accelerate if:

  • AI models exhibit self-reinforcing feedback loops or operate autonomously beyond human oversight.

  • Regulatory bodies fail to attract technically skilled experts.

• However, as with comprehension, AI-assisted regulatory systems could prolong effective oversight, even if regulators themselves don't understand the technology fully.

Key Assumptions and Limitations:

1. Human cognitive limits: This analysis assumes no significant enhancements (e.g., brain-computer interfaces) to human cognition that would enable people to keep pace with technological complexity.

2. AI augmentation: Tools like XAI could significantly delay these timelines by enhancing interpretability and regulatory capacity.

3. Societal prioritization: Investment in education, cross-disciplinary training, and regulatory technology will heavily influence these outcomes.

Conclusion:

• No humans can fully understand AI models: ~2040-2050.

• No capable regulators for AI models: ~2060-2070.

• However, augmented systems and tools may extend humanity’s ability to work with and govern these technologies effectively, even if full comprehension or direct regulation becomes impossible.
  

Grok’s answer:
Your hypothesis regarding the comprehension of increasingly complex technology by smaller groups of people as technology advances is a logical one, grounded in the observation of trends in various fields like AI and quantum computing. However, providing precise years for when no humans will understand or regulate highly complex AI models is speculative due to several factors:

1. Rate of Technological Advancement: The pace at which AI and other technologies evolve can be unpredictable. Historical trends show exponential growth in computing power (e.g., Moore's Law), but future technological breakthroughs could either accelerate or decelerate this trend.

2. Education and Knowledge Transfer: The capability of humanity to understand complex systems depends significantly on advancements in education, the development of new tools for understanding AI, and the rate at which new knowledge is disseminated and absorbed by society. Improvements in education, particularly in STEM fields, could potentially extend the timeline.

3. Interdisciplinary Approaches: AI and technology are increasingly becoming interdisciplinary. Advances in cognitive science, philosophy, law, and ethics might lead to new frameworks for understanding and regulating AI, potentially broadening the pool of individuals capable of engaging with these technologies.

4. Current Research and Predictions:

   • Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Predictions about AGI, which would be a highly complex AI model, range widely. Ray Kurzweil has predicted that AGI might be achieved by 2045, which he describes as the Singularity, a point where technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible. However, this does not directly correlate to a lack of comprehension by humans but rather a new phase in technological development.

1. Comprehension and Regulation: The notion that no human will understand or regulate AI hinges on the assumption that AI will surpass human cognitive capabilities entirely, which is a common theme in discussions about superintelligence. However, as of the latest insights, no specific date has been universally accepted for when this might occur.

Given these considerations:

• Estimation for Lack of Comprehension: If we consider the trend towards increasingly complex and opaque AI systems (like deep learning neural networks), and assuming no significant breakthroughs in interpretability or cognitive enhancement, a speculative estimation might place a scenario where very few or no humans fully understand AI models at around mid to late 21st century. This is based on the idea that as AI evolves, it might become so complex that it requires AI itself to understand and manipulate its own architecture, a concept touched upon in discussions about AI's "alienness" or unpredictability.

• Estimation for Regulation: The regulation of AI might face challenges even sooner as legal and regulatory frameworks struggle to keep pace with technological growth. However, predicting the exact year when no regulator would understand AI to regulate it effectively is particularly speculative. It depends heavily on how laws evolve with technology. Given current discussions on the need for "explainable AI," one might estimate that by 2040-2050, regulatory bodies might find current AI models increasingly difficult to oversee without significant technological or regulatory innovation.

These estimations are highly speculative and based on the assumption that current trends and challenges persist without major shifts in educational paradigms, regulatory practices, or unexpected breakthroughs in AI transparency and interpretability.