AI-driven concentration of power and resources within certain entities or groups, especially those with access to or ownership of powerful AI systems, leading to inequitable distribution of benefits and increased societal inequality.
"At the same time, and despite this overall trend, AI systems are also not easily accessible to many communities. Such direct inaccessibility occurs for a variety of reasons, including: purposeful non-release (situation type 1; Wiggers and Stringer, 2023), prohibitive paywalls (situation type 2; Rogers, 2023; Shankland, 2023), hardware and compute requirements or bandwidth (situation types 1 and 2; OpenAI, 2023), or language barriers (e.g. they only function well in English (situation type 2; Snyder, 2023), with more serious errors occurring in other languages (situation type 3; Deck, 2023). Similarly, there is some evidence of ‘actively bad’ artificial agents gating access to resources and opportunities, affecting material well-being in ways that disproportionately penalise historically marginalised communities (Block, 2022; Bogen, 2019; Eubanks, 2017). Existing direct and indirect access disparities surrounding artificial agents with natural language interfaces could potentially continue – if novel capabilities are layered on top of this base without adequate mitigation (see Chapter 3)."(p. 152)
Part of Access and Opportunity risks
Other risks from Gabriel et al. (2024) (69)
Capability failures
7.3 Lack of capability or robustnessCapability failures > Lack of capability for task
7.3 Lack of capability or robustnessCapability failures > Difficult to develop metrics for evaluating benefits or harms caused by AI assistants
6.5 Governance failureCapability failures > Safe exploration problem with widely deployed AI assistants
7.3 Lack of capability or robustnessGoal-related failures
7.1 AI pursuing its own goals in conflict with human goals or valuesGoal-related failures > Misaligned consequentialist reasoning
7.3 Lack of capability or robustness