Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Sad that there's the obvious regulatory capture angle encouraging motivated reasoning about AI risks and how they should be tackled. Maybe it's not the best idea that potentially civilization destroying technology is developed to maximize shareholder value?
It's not unlike if nuclear weapons was a profit and deployment maximizing enterprise, at least if one takes Anthropic et al cautions seriously.
by jampekka - Can somebody tell me a story how this will unfold? And - as long as the AI is confined to data centers - how it will prevent humans from unplugging the power?by danbruc
- [dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49619227
- Long term, humanity is 100% guaranteed to be dominated.
The question is when; currently, AI has no physical hosts to reside in, and it's not intelligent/adaptable enough (it doesn't need to be AGI, though).
However, we're not so far from both conditions to be true. Consumer devices will at some point be able to host powerful enough AIs, and AI intelligence is developing quickly.
Then, once an AI will escape containment (in one way or another), it will be extremely hard or impossible to contain. Then we're toast!
by pizza234 - Cool to see the BBC writing about this. If you're interested in this I suggest getting involved with PauseAI: pauseai.ukby tao_oat
- Gentleman, the Great Filter.by mvcosta91
- I don't understand how this is news. We have a ton of science fiction talking about the very same scenario. We (as a humanity) just have no solution.by f6v
- If I work at Anthropic and say there’s a 0% chance AI could kill all humans is BBC going to publish that as well? After all I am an “Anthropic researcher”, and my views should hold the same weight as this one.
Or are only the most sensationalist ones worth amplifying?
by paxys