Henry Kissinger: scientists must understand history

Now concerned about impact of runaway artificial intelligence, diplomat worries scientific advances have overtaken capacity for reflection on their impact

七月 1, 2021
Henry Kissinger
Source: Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting

US foreign policy giant Henry Kissinger has urged budding scientists to steep themselves in history and other humanities to better understand the social impact of their discoveries – particularly runaway breakthroughs in artificial intelligence.

Speaking at a conference of Nobel laureates, Dr Kissinger, an international relations scholar who shaped US foreign policy in the 1970s as national security adviser and then secretary of state, said it was crucial for researchers to tie “scientific capacities to long-range thinking about the nature of our societies”.

At this year’s Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, an annual get-together of prizewinners and young scientists, he urged them to extend their training into “some reflections on history and society…not that they become necessarily experts in both fields, but that they have enough of an understanding of the nature of how these fields work”, he told the conference, this year being held online. “Because science has now become so capable of penetrating into aspects of human existence in ways that were inconceivable before.”

Now 98, Dr Kissinger’s latest preoccupation is the rise of AI, and specifically what it means for how humans perceive the world. He told delegates it would have as revolutionary an impact on human consciousness as the invention of the printing press.

He has co-authored The Age of A.I. and Our Human Future, with former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and Dan Huttenlocher, the dean of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Schwarzman College of Computing.

The book, out in October, is set to argue that AI “affects our relationship with knowledge, impacts our world views, and changes society and politics in profound ways”.

“We have to develop a conceptual understanding that is parallel to the enormous advances science has made,” Dr Kissinger told the Lindau conference.

He described how his views on international relations had been formed in the age of nuclear weapons, when at least some form of arms control was possible, for example by controlling the number of warheads.

But with AI, “there’s nothing equivalent of that now”, he warned. “The impact of AI on weapons technology multiples the dangers of nuclear weapons.” 

“We can’t do without arms control,” he said. At first, he said his concerns about AI had been dismissed, but were now “beginning to be taken more seriously”.

But the challenge for scientists and politicians was broader than simply understanding AI’s impact on weapons, he argued.

Instead, they had to grapple with what would happen when the technology upended a multitude of fields and explore “the nature of thinking that develops when AI becomes a dominant element of operational science”.

Dr Kissinger revealed that as an undergraduate at Harvard University, he toyed with further studies in chemistry before ultimately specialising in diplomacy.

His Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 1973 for negotiating a peace deal in Vietnam, ranks as one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the awards.

david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

why this war criminal is given space is beyond me - Nobel prize was satire but nobody recognized it as that - almost as much as Obama's
Funny, but my experience as a scientist is not that of C.P. Snow's "two cultures", that is, mutual incomprehension. Many scientists at least of research group leader level and higher, have a deep, almost professional, level of interest in and knowledge of some branch of the Humanities and Arts. The apparent cross-over of musical abilities of mathematicians is well known, but deep and detailed interests in visual arts and in history are common. My experience in mixing with people of Humanities and Arts backgrounds is that the reverse does not apply to anything like the same degree; many realize that Science is important while having next to no detailed knowledge of any aspect of it. Unfortunately some even decry some or other aspect of science apparently because it abolishes the sublime, and worse, it is expressed in prose that is stodgy: this extends from Samuel Butler's and George Bernard Shaw's anti-Darwinian tirades up to Geoffrey Blainey's and Clive James' dismissal of climate change science! So, to turn this around, perhaps historians must understand science.