Existential Advocacy: Lawyering for AI Safety and the Future of Humanity

Abstract

 

Lawyers have played a central role in a wide range of social movements aiming to provide legal voice to marginalized communities. How might this tradition of social-change lawyering apply to the protection of future generations— a population that cannot advocate for themselves? This is a pressing question in the movement to mitigate “existential risk,” which refers to events that would foreclose a meaningful existence for future generations either through human extinction or irreversible trajectories of human suffering. Over the past two decades, an Oxford-based academic community has been researching existential threats that could arise from emerging technology, such as advanced artificial intelligence and engineered pandemics. These concerns have sparked the founding of dozens of non-profit organizations working to preserve the future of humanity. In just the past couple of years, this movement has entered the realm of law and politics, where it has already helped establish new legal mechanisms addressing AI safety, existential risk, and the rights of future generations. At the same time, the movement has faced criticism for shifting attention away from current social injustices.

 

This article presents the first empirical study of the legal wing of this movement. It asks how “existential advocates”  approach the key questions faced by all social-change lawyers regarding: (1) efficacy, which is framed here as the question of how to impact such a large-scale, uncertain, and abstract issue; and (2) accountability, which is framed here as the question of how to faithfully represent the future generations who are silent stakeholders in the decisions we make today. Drawing on a qualitative study embedded in this community of legal advocates, the article describes the development of a distinct model of social-change lawyering—the “priorities methodology.” This model aims to maximize impact using formal processes for selecting goals and strategies while minimizing cognitive biases. The priorities methodology is an innovation within the tradition of social-change lawyering, although it faces some difficult points of tension when seeking to mobilize a broader movement of lawyers and other actors. The article concludes with recommendations for adapting this model as the existential risk community scales up and pursues more direct and high-profile legal interventions.

Keywords: existential risk

JEL Classification: K00