Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I'd like to know how these people arrive at their estimates. Why 10% and not 1% or 50%?
    by romanows
  • The real source of concern perhaps is the 90% chance AI is used to kill 90% of humans. Just crash the global economy and supply chains and see how quickly major metro areas run out of food and gas.

    And as someone else pointed out, it will almost certainly be at the intentional direction of a human or humans, not the paper clip maximizer.

    by rolandr
  • I'm well past the point of opening clickbait from anthropic or openai. Yeah we get it everyone else should be regulated
    by dwedge
  • If it does it will be at the hands of another human.

    AI to me is like the Nuclear race again. Super powers will be using it as a super weapon. I don't think AGI will wipe us out by itself.

    by VagabundoP
  • > 10% chance AI "could kill all humans"

    Why not 10% chance that it will create enormous prosperity for all ? This is why the average person is increasing pissed at AI in general. That it gets associated with negativity.

    by bwfan123
  • If they actually believed this they'd be buying a truckload of fertilizer and diving it to the nearest chip fab. I don't buy it.
    by AustinDev
  • I’ve yet to see a rational argument for how we go from super intelligent LLMs to human extinction or extermination.

    I understand that some smart people are worried about it. I just haven’t come across a believable or understandable argument.

    by mstank
  • The early batch of Anthropic employees were mostly rationalist-adjacent AI safety folk that were almost uniformly claiming P_DOOM > .10 three years ago, so I believe them to be earnest.

    It's very interesting to me that besides the other small safety labs that don't actually produce frontier models, Anthropic manages to keep such a good reputation within that subculture compared to OpenAI. Despite having as crazy internal politics as OpenAI, they have converged quite a bit from the original vision of safety first through Darwinistic pressures.

    At least, it seems this way from the outside. I'm curious if the view from the inside is that different.

    edit: to be clear, my reading as an outsider is that Anthropic is seen as relatively better in the AI safety community, but has definitely dropped in absolute reputation too. This recent thread and the references show some of that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6j3kBHdowGLCeqobg/dear-god-p...

    by mchinen

Explore Birbla archives