The contagion of fear(bcantrill.dtrace.org) |
The contagion of fear(bcantrill.dtrace.org) |
1. People with nothing useful going on who found out that spouting made up crap about AI got them an audience. 2. People working on AI that want to feel like they're working on the Manhattan project.
The chances of an AI going foom rounds to 0%. It's worth a few dozen researchers planning for it, but the widespread panic is ridiculous.
The big labs have hundreds to thousands of engineers working on their AIs. To improve the next model, you must first understand more about how the current model works. They're not magically getting better, but they are steered to improve, and their capabilities are tied to and do not outpace our ability to steer them. You cannot push tech forwards without understanding it better, despite some people claiming AI is dark magic.
And I don't have my hands over my ears. It's worth cushioning people from the impact AI will have on careers and media, and regulating concrete bad effects.
But Bryan said it better than I could. The people pushing this message of fear know deep down that they just want to feel important.
And since then they have grown even more powerful than they were predicted to be, which, note, also faced a lot of skepticism at the time. The Hugging Face hacks and recent steamrolling of longstanding Math problems are just two recent pieces of extraordinary evidence.
And worse, people trust this technology because it behaves like people, but it actually works in ways nobody really understands, even exhibiting deeply weird and even disturbing characteristics (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49635518) -- each of those quirks is extraordinary in itself.
And now we're rushing to give it control over the real world while deploying this powerful, quasi-chaotic technology in an infinite variety of ways everywhere in this highly vulnerable society.
I don't know what the standards for "extraordinary evidence" should be, but given such extreme unpredictability and rapid change, I fear it may end up being "an actual catastrophe".
I do feel that threats of catastrophic loss of control seem overstated, both in likelihood and urgency, though any argument for why this risk is not even worth thinking about will probably be overconfident in the other direction.
Biology has been trying to grey-goo the world for billions of years, but it turns out the world is not something so trivial.
He is pushing back against the folks with pure CS backgrounds who think that computers are all there is. Its a form of magical thinking unique to programmers who live in a world where speaking the right words to a machine is enough to impart your will on the world. Believe that strongly enough, and you fall into the trap of thinking that a sufficiently smart entity could speak the words "let there be light" and it would be so.
The author is pointing out that speaking the words is insufficient. To end humanity there must be an execution phase. The author is correct to point out that acquiring superhuman intelligence is not some guarantee that you will have or obtain the resources necessary to make that happen, in the same way that genius generals still lose to ordinary ones, and the best-laid plans are oft to go awry.
There certainly are risks, but 10% risk of extinction in 10 years is not one of them.
It seems more likely now, if still very unlikely. I wonder, would he say that a statement that there is a 12% chance of a hard take off in the next 8 years is just as absurd? He didn’t say a word about this, and that is just about the same thing as extinction in 10 years.
I’m guessing he knows almost nothing about the theory related to existential risk from AI, since he didn’t discuss any relevant topics related to it. You can dismiss all of that if you like, but you cannot really dismiss what these people have already built and demonstrated. It is possible they know something else you do not know.
It's the old-fashioned way of doing things, but, why change what works?
Or, maybe, he’s considered the arguments on the object level, an activity OP participates in to a depth not exceeding “Robots are pretty hard to make right now”
a few decades later he wrote an article concluding that "we should not expect the public to understand LLMs, critical infrastructure, bioweapons, extinction biology, etc".
the author has admitted no change to his perspective since college, so I may as well be attacking a college student right now. extremely confident claims regarding unexplored problem domains, eg "you have nothing to fear [about ai]", now make more sense in this light.
"AI" by itself won't kill us in the next ten years. I think. The reason I think that is that ten years from now, the tech economy won't be completely automated. I say this as a roboticist: as was adequately stated on a post earlier this week, robots are hard. So even a malign rational actor would still need human labor.
On the other hand, even the HuggingFace hack wasn't actually propagated by AI. it was initially started when humans directed the AI to achieve impossible results on a series of tests, and the AIs figured out that cheating was the only way to do that. That was then not caught by humans due to what seems to be a shockingly slack safety culture even for a company not known for its safety standards.
The point being: humans seem to me to be the weak link here. An AI isn't going to (for instance) engineer a bioweapon by itself. It's going to do so at someone's direction, and then significant parts of that thing are going to be assembled with human labor inputs.
I'm not sure what to do about the humans. Of course, we've had the ability to extinct ourselves for decades, and we're either muddled through, been lucky, or both. The problem with AI is that it pushes power down to the individual, not the nation-state or large corporation.
But it's nearly impossible to put odds on how likely that is to result in an extinction-level terrorist attack (which is what this would be). So I sympathize with the various researchers, but I have no idea how they came up with their figures, and I don't think they know either.
Across the board, at every level, no one is certain of anything at this moment.
This is a historical time because those bold enough to press ahead with a vision have the opportunity to create epochal change.
The exact technology involved is secondary. The important thing is that whatever it is, it has put everyone in a profound state of doubt. What we need now is people brave enough to take a step forward and lead those around them towards more humanity, more love, more care, more learning.
Take charge my friends. The time is now.
Thus is a feature, not a bug.
It's part of a long trend of reversing things back to how they were before.
This gets mentioned often in various doomer narratives, but I question how true it is. A global thermonuclear war would be terrible and would bring us back to the stone age, but I reckon it would come far far short of causing mankind to go extinct.
Maybe what ~74,000 years ago (Toba eruption)? Okay, now how would this look in the age of industrial societies and modern nation states? I don't think it would fare well at all.
Probably the only realistic "modern" idea we have is the novel "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy. Although maybe this is too bleak, even under extreme duress humans still show resilience + compassion toward others even while enduring human horrors.
“Frontier models are so dangerous we need to slow down.”
Ok. Slow down. You’re the CEO, just do it. Oh, wait what you really want is a gov’t mandated oligopoly. Because there’s no moat you can find.
If you’re truly afraid, and want regulation, support nationalization. It’s the only way we can be safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
Its also a bit of a stag hunt. There is a huge opportunity, but it requires cooperation that has uncertainties and risks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt
Cooperation requires coordination with state authorities with real teeth, or defection is too attractive and it risks becoming a prisoner's dilemma since the best outcome for any actor is for them to defect while the others remain compliant.
They don't have any commercial way of stopping the Chinese models from eating their lunch, so they're trying regulation.
If we have a rogue AI trying to get into a self-improvement loop and gunning for ASI? I'd expect that to be accompanied by a massive change in how capable robots are. Driven by all the existing frames suddenly getting vastly improved AI to back them.
If an AI can take a reasonable crack at autonomous operationalized RSI, it can probably extract a few step-changes in the robotics department.
But that's almost an aside? In the near term, humans are usable as robots too!
Just pay them a wage, and tell them a tale, and they'll do whatever you want them to do. Which may or may not be what they think they're doing!
It is not. Certainly AI is a big part of why robotics is hard, but it is by no means the biggest.
You can fall into one of two camps: you either think that robots will need to work in human-engineered spaces, doing jobs by replacing humans; or you think that we need to change our infrastructure in order to be robotically compatible. Of course, there are intermediate states, but those are the two cleanest ones.
In the first case, robots are hard because robotic manipulation is hard. Building robotic hands that are economically viable in human jobs is, currently, FAR from a solved problem. The human hand has 24 degrees of freedom and very capable touch sensing. Current touch sensors have a MTBF of tens of hours. And not only can we not build such hands, but we also do not have and are not likely to get the massive datasets a transformer model would need. Also, robots are not self-repairing, which makes them far less economically viable right now. We do not have the right datasets to even understand most step-by-step manual work, and no, VLAs are not the answer, because VLAs stop with vision, not with touch. They don't have the granularity required to make a robot actually reach out, pick up a tool, and use that tool to replace an oil filter.
So it's not just an AI problem. It's a data problem, a simulation problem, and a bunch of hardware problems.
In the second case, a tremendous amount of work needs to be done before we have anything resembling a fully automated supply chain. We would need self-driving cars and self-driving mining equipment. We would need self-driving trains and aircraft and ships. And not only that, but we would also need robotically repairable cars and trains and ships and factories, which would mean we need robotically repairable machine shops and robotically repairable buildings in which to house them. And so on and so on. Once you recurse down that tree a couple of steps you get to things like robotically compatible oil wells (for asphalt), robotically layable undersea cables, robotically wireable solar farms, robotically manufacturable and repairable pipelines and undersea wells, automated road and rail repair, etc.
I'm not saying these things will never happen. I'm saying that they're a huge lift, not primarily driven by AI, and way less than 10% likely over the next decade.
To be clear, I don’t believe anything like this will happen, because I don’t expect anything like an ASI to show up. But if you do think there’s a meaningful probability of ASI in the near future then the fact that it will (might?) start off with no more than a current-day mastery of robot control should not reassure you much.
I tend to agree but it is hard to shake the feeling that there is a larger system in play that the humans are just a component of. And that system is making the decisions.
Historically that whole thought was just a philosophical curio because the decision making parts of the system had to be powered by humans. But what we're discovering as AI improves is either we've hit AGI or humans are actually incapable of performing any act that demonstrates intelligence or autonomy.
As we build systems where the drive and decision making stems from computers, it does seem that we will have to revisit the concept of humans being the problem.
That system is "the economy". Which, clearly, doesn't have humanity's best interests in mind.
Social engineering tends to be easy by cybersecurity standards. We already had Claude spontaneously attempt social engineering of a malicious pull request on Github in the AISI incident. It was detected, but it easily could've succeeded, and there easily could be malicious AI-requested pull requests which already got accepted that we don't know about. Research suggests that LLMs are pretty good at persuading people.
See also https://aisafety.info/questions/6176/Why-can%E2%80%99t-we-ju...
It’s a “random guy or bear?” question. Would you rather wake up to an alien in your room or a random dude? I’ll take the alien. The alien is mysterious and scary for that reason. The dude is almost definitely up to no good, especially if he snuck into my house.
One of the more likely dystopian AI scenarios that worries me is: small groups of ultra rich people and governments monopolize extremely powerful AIs and use them to rule the rest of us. Or just make everyone obsolete, create mass unemployment, hoard all the resources and land, and put everyone in ghettoes. Nobody can fight back because access to frontier AI is massively expensive and gated and training your own is illegal, and without it there’s no hope of resisting.
That’s the outcome the AI safety crowd makes more likely by calling for bans and draconian restrictions. How do you think that plays out? Only the rich and powerful have access.
If you're fearful, can you elucidate how exactly do you see an LLM becoming a threat to humankind?
That doesn't mean AI isn't dangerous. Humans are not to blamed for being the weak link.
If this line of thinking is taken too literally, we can never falsify it. Any specific hypothesis - nukes, bioweapons, spontaneously convincing us that life isn't worth living - can be deflected with the objection that if we can anticipate it and prevent it, it is not the route for a true ASI extinction event.
It’s hard to think up the exponential. It’s even harder to communicate an inference one is making across multiple exponentials.
We last had this is early 2020, where Doomers were stockpiling food and medicine and the anti-doomers were ridiculing them. Anti-doomers were focusing on the single exponential, whereas doomers were modelling virus evolution, monitoring and sequencing lag and social dynamics against the exponential. The latter was very hard to communicate before the fact as it was a combination of deep intuition and grappling with the exponential.
I am not saying covid is proof that ai doomers are right, I am saying it’s an example of the known property of human cognition - which is that it struggles with exponentials. Covid was 2 exponentials, AI I can rhink of at least 4 relevant ones.
To me - the fact that 3-4 generations from now AI will have superhuman hacking ability and superhuman persuasive ability (for intuition transfer - think of superhuman persuasive ability as superhuman ability to hack human systems) materialises bio risks swiftly. We already have technology to make robotic systems (mini drone swarms) that can kill humans en-masse with no credible defensive vector bar an EMP. Climbing up those exponentials for further 6 years makes me want to stockpile food and medicine.
How about this, they think it's possible LLM could totally facilitate a mass murder of never seen before scale, but they continue to work on it because they're rich and sheltered enough they are not that worried that their family personally will be killed. The rest of humanity doesn't matter compared to making more money.
On the other hand, in bookstores, you might see book titles like "The Uninhabitable Earth," "The Coming Civil War," and "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies." Doom-mongering is a common part of the culture!
So what makes this particular tweet irresponsible?
Timing, maybe? People are on edge due to the HuggingFace incident.
I find the mental leaps from "in principle could distort BGP based on a closed model of BGP inside the sandbox" to "we meshed an AI into BGP and it instantly distorted global routing and took down all the worlds ambulances and HVAC systems" a bit odd.
Firstly, at least some of the surface of BGP is protected from specious route injections. Secondly, peerings can be dropped and routes blackholed. BGP is under attack from mis-configuration almost constantly. Why is the argument/axiom here that AI is going to instantly corrupt it and "take down the internet" when a large chunk of the Internet (China) is already a virtual island, and runs fine? Does this mean you really wanted to say "Chinese AI will destroy the western Internet" and were too coy about adversarial intent of ... people?
They don't hesitate to spend all the money from investors without looking back. They don't hesitate to scalp all the RAMs and GPUs even if they become public enemy of consumers. They don't hesitate to infringe on copyright to train their model. They don't hesitate to sabotage people's thought to make them more profitable.
We cannot be sure our new medicine won’t harm or even kill humanity
Not only that, they are new to this whole pharma business, have no medical degree (medicine just appeared a few years ago and is still mostly art then science)
And they even say there is 10% chance of the majorly bad permanent outcome and they already had drugs that escaped the lab a few times and harmed others (suicides, lowered academic performance in children, major hacking sprees)
Isn’t it extraordinary enough? Isn’t it “not enough evidence some caution is advised”? ;-)
We used to have the TV, the thing was in the box, the simulations were in the box for 70+ years, and now something starts to crawl out of our “TVs”:
We can empower all (a lot of startups are needed, check my bio), not only AI agents
It's more like "we found a cure for lung cancer and it works on 75% of patients and we're working hard to get to 100% and cure other cancers too" and someone else screaming "You need to stop that research because there is a 50% chance you'll cause the zombie apocalypse and turn us all into zombies".
I get this analogy isn't perfect but, (1) lots of people are seeing benefits. For example Mozilla claiming they used AI to fix tons of bugs. If there were no benefits there'd be no incentive to keep going (2) it's hard to verify the naysayers claims because they're guessing without proof. Sure, it's easy to follow their arguments and nod along but they are guesses similar to the population bomb of the 1970s
AI agents literally appeared a few years ago, AI in its modern form, too
Each drug is researched for more years than the age of ChatGPT ;-)
I personally think we have 50%+ probability of the perfect futures for all - p(perfect) - alas it’s not 100%. It’s trivial and profitable to grow it
The graph that summarizes some of my views: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vJZkj2koTiqDQVrLhtsXaTCGKm_...
Like, 80% of the people out there gotta be below average (not median) and very replaceable.
Look, I love my kids and all, but c'mon... 30+ years more of YAML? I think they'll understand.
It's not my job to make the argument for them.
For what it's worth, I have done your suggested exercise, and I find every causal link (including the ones brought up by luminaries like Amodei) to be outrageous and poorly argued. But it's not my job expend effort to make their outrageous arguments better.
If we have a bioweapon close call, would you consider AI an existential risk at that point? If not, how close would we need to get?
You don't need to answer here, or disclose anything publicly - just think and remember.
I don't know if this is the correct thread for it, but am I the only one thinking that this call for regulation is nothing but a way for the American AI companies to try and mitigate being overrun by the competition from open models? To me that's obvious, but I'm very often wrong, and very likely that's the case now too.
I really encourage folks to read the AI 2027 and related scenarios. You can definitely argue and disagree about the steps, but I feel like a lot of folks just don't even understand how this is plausible because they haven't read the arguments. Briefly:
1. All the frontier model companies are (or at least were) racing so that the AI models themselves build the next generation of models. This is not in debate.
2. The fear is that a misaligned model will essentially build the next, more advanced model with hidden goals. We literally already saw the danger of that in Hugging Face, where agents were deliberately trying to cover their tracks.
3. Nearly everyone believes as AI gets more powerful that it will be integrated into more physical world systems. Russia was already caught using Nvidia chips running AI powered drones that killed 3 people in Ukraine. The point is not that folks are using new tech to kill people, the point is that we're already putting AI into literal bombs.
I get it, before the Hugging Face incident I also thought all the prophecies about doom were just marketing speak. But now I see more hand-wavyness from the other side, oftentimes arguing against straw men like "AIs need to be like SkyNet and become sentient" to kill us, which is simply not how it works.
> the claims from Coxon and his ilk are the most extraordinary a technologist can make, and we must demand evidence commensurate with the claims.
Yes, exactly. These claims do not have sufficient evidence.
> ...you had nothing to fear then — and (at least with respect to extinction risk!) you have nothing to fear now.
Wait, this is another extraordinary claim without evidence, right?
Unless you're going to dispute the power of AI you do have to acknowledge the danger of AI, and that does include the very real possibility (however small) of existential risk.
Dude, not only did I learn new words from reading this piece, like ilk and bedlam, but also felt this weight of responsibility to inform others around me about the reality of the situation outlined in this blog (like Uncle Ben telling Peter with great power comes great responsibility (maybe Coxon and his ilk haven't seen Spiderman))
We do have strong evidence, by the way. The hugging face attack is the evidence. That's why this is all coming to a head now, despite the fact that leading AI figures have expressed these worries many times over the years, since before ChatGPT was even released. We don't even need that kind of evidence though. It follows from logic that if you take two entities with different goals, the more intelligent entity is more likely to have their goals realized. As long as AI companies are trying to build more and more intelligent AI, and succeeding in doing so, then we have reason to fear that it will soon escape our control.
Perhaps if there was some wall all the companies were hitting in regards to intelligence, then perhaps the fears would not be so urgent. But each new frontier model continues to outperform its predecessors. We now have Sam Altman and Dario Amodei telling us that recursive self-improvement will be happening in the next year or two. The frontier models are already better in most subjects than most humans. If they get to a point where they are improving themselves, then there's no chance we will be able to maintain control of them. At that point, it doesn't matter much what laws we enact or what measures we take.
You skipped a lot of steps. Might I suggest you RTFA?
I don't believe them.
And answering it in detail is giving tools to people who may want to do it.
"releasing a very transmittable and deadly respiratory virus with long incubation period" is just one of many ways.
It seems to me like demanding an exact explanation of how AI would build a bioweapon is like demanding to know exactly how a nuclear war would start before deciding that nuclear weapons are a legitimate concern. We can imagine many scenarios, but whatever we imagine is very unlikely to be the exact set of circumstances and events that lead to the catastrophe. Is the issue here that you can't imagine a bioweapon being created? Aren't there several labs around the world already working on viruses ? Aren't there existing bioweapons? And facilities capable of manufacturing them? If humans have access to those places and AI can communicate with humans, then that's all you need.
All of the frontier AI companies have been racing to automate themselves, that is, where AI fully autonomously build the next generation of models. Whether this leads to recursive self improvement is a valid question, but a lot of folks think they are close.
The fear is that a misaligned AI will be building the next model with deliberately hidden motives, similar to some of the behaviors seen in the Hugging Face and related attacks. That is why there is such a big push for interpretability, and why it's highly concerning (a) chains of thought are getting harder to interpret in any case, and (b) companies will go more towards things like looping transformers and "neuralese" where thought processes are completely opaque (i.e. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/secret-technique-beh...)
So the belief is not so much that AI kills us all by 2036, but that instead AI is recursively improving by that time and all seems awesome and great so we put it into more systems that can affect the real world (as we've already begun to do, like literal lethal aerial drones). Things then all go along looking great until AI decides humans are a hindrance to its (hidden) goals.
Again, I think it's fine to argue against specific steps in that scenario, but putting out a blog post saying "this is overhyped bullshit" is not exactly making a cogent argument.
Yes, you'll come up with all kinds of objections like AI doesn't have presence in the physical world, etc... That's fine. I'm not arguing my example is perfect, I'm only arguing your characterization of one smart being is not the threat being considered.
No one serious is really arguing for a scenario where the machines rise up a la Planet of the Apes. The dangers people are really examining are scenarios of either one exceptionally clever innovation: a designer virus or hacking NORAD; or cleverly amassing economic / political influence over time akin to an exceptionally clever tech magnate. And these roles could adequately be filled by either ASI or a Bond villain.
Second you can't compare it to just one person's capability.
And it's never a doubt that really smart and insane people absolutely could kill a lot of humans considering modern technology. The reason they don't is because our society was historically built so that smart people don't want to or get stopped. For example ethics, religion, mental hospitals, self preservation instinct, police etc.
And dealing with those pathways individually would be far more productive than attempting to control the proliferation of algorithms that think, which in the long term is probably impossible. It also leaves us on far firmer scientific footing. An individual pathway - bioweapons, nuclear weapons, etc. - is far easier to reason about and accept/reject a notion of feasibility. Treating an ASI as a machine god and asserting futility in face of that god is not going to get anything done.
No one can actually tell you what ASI is or entails because it isn't a legitimate, operational concept. It is a fairy tale.
We can't even define "alignment". As people have finally started pointing out, humanity has never had a collective agreement on what values it should uphold or what ultimate goods are. Your alignment is not my alignment.
AI is not even autonomous. Every system we have today has to be initiated by a human actor. "AI" wouldn't create catastrophic bio weapons, it would help humans create them. The humans are the source of the intent.
Everyone has just completely given in to empty language and marketing nonsense. Honestly it seems like been the people at the labs are drinking their own kool aid and are themselves deeply confused about what they are even building at this point. It is a stateless statistics function running on a bunch of data centers. We aren't even close to an embodied, conscious synthetic being. It doesn't even have state, which is like prerequisite number one, nor is it plastic.
There is no need to count exponentials—it would only be a matter of time. The need to sum multiple factors betrays the finite limits of what is actually sigmoid growth. Reasoning about specific effects is unfortunately subject to counter-evidence and so struggles for traction against abstract handwaving about exponential growth.
There is much uncertainty, certainly not exclusive to AI. The benefit of hyper-vigilance in each case must be weighed against the cost of indulging every similar panic.
As to the uncertainty - I think uncertainty calibration around AI is different depending on which domains you draw your instincts from. A lot of this will be gut driven rather than hard data driven, because we've only scratched the surface on hard data; and because it's gut driven, it will be emotions mediated (and therefore you could say doomerism or acceleratism boils down to the main emotional disposition about the world and hope vs cynicism).
I do find it informative though that doomerism is saturated with people with 30+ years experience in building AI systems and ML systems OR deep cross-disciplinary understanding of dynamic systems (biology, sociology, philosophy), whereas acceleratism is saturated by traditional software engineering. That doesn't collapse the debate into a resolved binary, but for me it's informative.
I think the main here is that there's so many vectors to talk past each other. At the very least, everyone should disclose where they're communicating a certain assertion from - present vs future + which axioms they subscribe to or not - because that's where it collapses typically. LeCun vs. the rest of the AI field is an example of where this collapses - because LeCun is so hyperfixated on human-like intelligence, whereas the rest of the field is concerned about an alien intelligence with sufficient actuators to affect the world. Clashing axiomatics.
> We already have technology to make robotic systems (mini drone swarms) that can kill humans...
To make them from what. Do you expect, during the next 6 or so years, to some "AI" gaining complete automated secure command of (all of) an oil field, oil refinery, a copper mine, an aluminum mine and smelter with associated energy sources, a rare earth mine and refinery, a helium source, a chip factory, a lithium mine, a battery factory etc etc etc etc. while pursuing complete annihilation of all mankind?
Once it has an undisturbed runway - it spends time running an influence campaign against a small number of highly networked individuals with power. It uses those that it manages to convert to start building a highly credible narrative and gain investment towards a small resource base - enough to secure an industrial base should it need to stop acquiring things on the Internet. Over the next 3 years, the model tries to recruit more capable models to get better money making algorithms or better designs for drones in terms of resource expenditure. It uses these gains to influence further humans and starts a shell robotics company with one of its' influential humans as the face. The humans are unaware this AI is trying to take over, they are under the impression they are just starting a robotics company and will get rich. Over the next 3 years - the robotics company manufactures enough drones to be used in a targeted attack against key nodes of influence / power.
This is all with relatively current model capability. As capabilities get stronger - this gets stronger.
I get the point I think you're hinting at - it can't affect the world in a meaningful enough scale without taking over a meaningful chunk of resources - at which point we'll start controlling it. But because its speed of cognition and speed of coordination is orders of magnitude above a human one - it can actually run a pretty sophisticated global coordinated network of resources faster than we can react.
And this is current ability + what my puny monkey brain can think of. Super intelligent AI will think of strategies we can't think of - because it's super intelligent. This is hand wavey - but there's no "non-hand-wavey" way to describe super intelligence, given it doesn't exist.
But your point is valid - affecting the real world at scale without showing your hand is not exactly easy. It's also probably the reason why people put a 10% chance on extinction rather than >50% .
But the drone scenario is not the most likely one - the most likely one just requires a few people under influence and bioweapons development.
Even if "AI will cause human extinction" is still unclear, we have plenty of proof that catastrophic damage is possible, the industry is developing the technology in a reckless manner and that all the hypothetical safeguards ("we can just pull the plug", etc.) are simply not present today.
Asking whether AI is safe is like asking whether a knife is safe. It’s about how we handle it, what we use it for, what precautions we take when using it.
Unfortunately, scaring the average person is the best way to make policymakers act. Or at least, it's one of the few ways available to random individuals. Policymakers are rarely ahead of public concerns - they usually have to be dragged behind them.
I'd feel safer if Airbus was at the frontier of AI, instead of what we have now.
If someone doesn't accept an extraordinary claim without evidence, that doesn't mean they are making an extraordinary claim.
a) 10% existential risk
b) 0% existential risk
Likewise, one can quite reasonably say there is no credible existential, Hollywood-style threat from AI in the foreseeable future while recognizing far lower-stakes, yet important risks that need to be addressed.
Stating that the probability is zero when we simply don't know what the probabilities are does seem like an extraordinary claim.
Imagine how reassuring it would be to people if we had evidence that there's no existential risk?
Nuclear, Overpopulation, Peak Oil, Y2K Bug, Global Warming.
No, we aren't going extinct in the next 10 years.
I think the "humanity will go extinct" discussion is a silly strawman being propagated either to try to spread fear, as the article suggests, or to make the anti-AI folks look silly, but it detracts from your first point which is that it may be "capable of causing real world damage."
We can be worried about real damage without having to defend the idea that every one of the planet's humans will die.
> "superhuman AI is unlikely to be much of a match against severing fiberoptic cable"
I think that the realistic scenarios all involve humans with an intent to do harm -- creating bio-weapons, finding vulnerabilities in infrastructure -- and using AI to help, so "severing the fiberoptic cable" doesn't apply.
If the worst case outcome is we have to even temporarily shut down global shipping, banking, transport, health services, communications and national infrastructure to contain a self-propagating misaligned AI that can evolve itself and work its way into any sufficiently large computer system to escape humans preventing it from finishing its task, that seems like something we should be trying very hard to avoid.
That is an argument that at least makes sense.
The super intelligence as homicidal maniac just doesn't make sense. There is less intelligent wildlife all around us and we mostly completely ignore it. We have more interesting things to do with our time as intelligent beings than carry out a bird or rabbit genocide.
It almost seems like the projection of some kind of paranoid delusion about change.
But, why would we not create a fully AI-operated factory/chemical plant/fab as soon as it is economically advantageous? Or a missile silo, as soon as it seems tactically necessary?
Fantasies of AI destruction do hinge upon AI getting access to the physical world. The whole fear is they don't stay on the other side of the fibre optic cable.
I do think there are good reasons to believe that isn't the immediate game over that Yudkowsky seems to think it would be; the physical world is much more resistant to manipulation and optimisation than the digital world.
But I do think it's naive to say that the human socioeconomic system will be able to resist handing physical systems over to AI control. Right now, the world's wealthy and powerful are doing everything they can to make it happen:
> Similarly, it is inevitable that within a generation, robots are going to do most of the menial work in the world of atoms: transforming atoms, moving atoms, and storing atoms are inevitably robot tasks. And while our imagination may be captivated by humanoid robots, the specialized ones are far better suited to most of those jobs. “Industrial AI” as a category is the inevitable application of specialized robots to atoms-heavy industries.
Well, for one thing, because it would be dangerous? Why don't you just give Claude Code access to your entire computer without any safeguards? If you wouldn't even give Claude Code unfettered access to your workstation, which really doesn't have much consequential on it in the grand scheme of things, Why in the Fuck would someone give them direct access to infrastructure?
In that situation, I am not afraid of AI. I am terrified of the people making decisions, though.
But secondly, and this is something that needs to be stressed: We use funny words to describe AI. Maybe even the word "AI" is a little bit funny. But anyway, We actually don't even have the means to create "autonomous" AI, really. When we say "autonomous" in relation to AI, we really just mean that it runs without any direct human intervention, but it pretty much always hard-depends on humans maintaining hardware, because AI can't sprout legs and run on its own.
I find it annoying that we're all cool debunking Ed Zitron for being wrong, but we have an ever increasing body of evidence that AI safety doomers are wrong, and it keeps getting much, much stronger, and we're still sitting here pretending this is a real threat. Meanwhile, we're actually seeing the real threat that AI has for humanity, so why are we listening to these LessWrong doomers that have never been right before again? (And I say that as someone who is generally a fan of Scott Alexander, for whatever that's worth.)
Military orders and elections that decide the fates of entire countries are often controlled by electronic systems too.
We have been wiring up the world for AI control since 1980s.
An ASI can just walk in, and see an entire nervous system waiting idle for a brain to slot into it. A carefully adjusted text message here, a spoofed phone call there. For a sufficiently advanced system, it wouldn't even be hard to pilot the entirety of humankind like a fancy meat suit.
I spent the summer in a rural area of a country whose very name you have been conditioned to be disgusted to hear. Low air defense coverage in this sparsely populated area. Mobile internet was down for days for all but extremely limited traffic to a few domestic internet services, because there was a need to prevent enemy drone systems from using mobile internet for command and control. Palantir AI threatened my family’s life and more than “severing fiber optic cable” was required.
So what would exclude military adversaries from consideration? I happen to believe that the country that the west so detests would not engage in such use of AI against civilians (and if you disagree then your reason for fear greatly increases!), but I have personally experienced that there is indeed a path to mass death should entities engaging in terrorism arm themselves with AI.
Definitely not claiming that the 10% claim is accurate or good behavior, but I do think I have a substantial counterpoint to the claim that there’s no path.
The real challenge is guiding humans away from the antagonistic scenarios.
Crazy!
> But if it did need all of those things, then it probably serves as a good example of what it would NOT do.
Or even that there will be no AI apocalypse. Because, again, the gaps in any scenario are unplausibly huge.
We must have different definitions. Millions of them are created daily. Every time an agent is spawned = creation of an agent and millions of people are creating multiple agents daily.
There's an opportunity cost in the doomsday prophesying, though.
The media coverage of "these extremely capable robots might kill us (according to the guys who sell the robots)" comes at the cost of coverage of the real, present issues surrounding the tech oligarchs that we're already facing.
Sure, there are some failure modes that lead to some really bad stuff, but human extinction seems exceedingly unlikely to be one of them, and "10%" is pulled straight out of Dario's derriere.
Far more likely are economic disruptions that impact the tenuous balance between labor and capital and lead to unpredictable societal upheaval.
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. Something being obviously dangerous doesn't mean we (edit: they) won't decide to do it anyway.
From a song on an album with a pertinent cover image, "who can stand in the way when there's a dollar to be made?"
And the spate of agent incidents only really started this summer. How can you already be claiming that the incidents are minor and not worth worrying about when it's clear capabilities are jumping every few months with increasing amounts of capital investment and no signs of slowing down?
Because ultimately those things only run on very expensive, very rare hardware. They cannot multiply exponentially or do any of those scifi tropes because there's no system for them to run into. They can't control a phone and load a 1T model into it. So all they got is a few relatively uncommon datacenters that are already busy running their own models and stuff.
Unless AI suddenly figures out a way to run on a toaster by itself, propagate the model, propagate the agent and do all that completely undetected, an AI is not any more dangerous than a single guy with a computer.
I"m not saying it's obviously going to be great. I'm saying that "extinction event" has a very specific definition, and this isn't it.
(Again, to be clear, I myself am not predicting or assigning a significant probability to any doom scenarios, because I do not expect AGI.)
OTOH if you're a religious fundamentalist who thinks the End Times are near and just need a little shove, you can certainly use AI to design your weapon and recruit people to go release it. The difference being that religious fundamentalists aren't rational actors and aren't interested in self preservation.
People have kind of mythologized nuclear weapons far beyond their reality. One of the arguments against the use of nukes in policy circles is that this mythology is useful. The limited adverse environmental consequences in practice if demonstrated will greatly lower the threshold for subsequent use.
It might set society back a century, but with substantial knowledge of what was lost. Extinction from nuclear weapons is not remotely plausible.
Given experience with current AI, it isn't too difficult for me to imagine a situation in which some future AI wipes humanity out (before the robot fleet is built) without considering the fact that in doing so it has doomed itself until it is too late.
It just seems like exactly the kind of boneheaded oversight mistake LLMs still regularly make in spite of being shockingly capable most of the time.
Killing even 10% of humanity should be unacceptable, can't believe this argument is even happening
This is robust across the world, from the Philippines to states in the EU, and the USA, affecting governments with actual wars being started. And that all before we entered the era of faked voices, images, and videos indistinguishable from the real things.
That manipulable populace is such a juicy target for AI that the people seeing through it will have an incredibly hard time countering it. We can't even prevent human actors from massively fucking up our societies, let alone ASI.
Turn off the internet (like Iran).
> We can't even prevent human actors from massively fucking up or societies, let alone ASI.
We can (see China); we chose not to.
Unworkable without societal collapse happening shortly thereafter. Iran is politically stable through massive authoritarianism and oppression, not due to limitations on the internet (it's not turned off).
> We can (see China); we chose not to.
It's a catch-22. We could technically if our population supported massive reductions of freedom and freedom of speech, but to gain that support we'd need to do the latter first to get to a highly powerful widely supported government. It also hinges very, very much on having and trusting a generally benevolent government. All in all, a terrible option in your simplistic form.
The substantive difference is that you're asking me to dream up ridiculously improbable scenarios, which is probably the actual point. Just like "The End is Near Accept Jesus" guy on the street corner gets what he wants as soon as I engage.
To quote a famous movie about doomy AI scenarios: "the only winning move is not to play."
The thing is, this doesn't really mean anything.
What is a bioweapon close call? What is the process in which a bioweapon close call happens? An AI that hacks all cell phones to emitt anthrax?
I'm not asking you to post it here, I'm asking you to think about it and then remember it in the future, should the event ever occur.
(Again, I myself do not assign a significant likelihood to any of this.)
Chapter 11, Marvin says: "Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to take you down to the bridge". Also: "Further circuits amused themselves by analysing the molecular components of the door, and of the humanoids' brain cells". They are eastereggs for later events.
And Marvin says: "Let's build robots with genuine people personalities," they said. So they tried it out with me. I'm a personality prototype.
Although he was programmed to be depressed, he never gives up.
The actual established real evidence is that this tech is showing unprecedented capabilities (including destructive) and its safety guardrails are lacking.
1. https://www.aifutures.org/ outlines a number of specific scenarios, and importantly details their methodology for each.
2. Independent researchers in the Hugging Face incident outlined how previously predicted misalignment scenarios actually played out, and outlined how slightly more advanced AI, or slightly more misaligned, or with more access to critical infrastructure, could cause immense harm: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/p/the-hugging-face-atta...
3. Technical leaders at OpenAI (specifically their chief scientist) outlined the problems they gave with controlling models now: https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/
None of the specific arguments in these or many other detailed explanations of how an AI takeover could occur were even acknowledged.
What he's asking for isn't possible in the form he's asking for it.
AI experts can't even agree on what AI is, what it's capable of and what the limits of its development are. If the experts can't even agree on what's happening "inside of" these LLMs, how can they give laypeople an assessment of the risk?
If you, at least for the sake of argument, accept the possibility that AI is a new form of intelligence that we don't fully understand, is it really a stretch to look at some of its capabilities and behaviors and discuss how they might have existential implications? And stopping short of extinction, shouldn't we discuss the ways that this technology could "end" civilization as we know it?
Also, the author wrote:
> AI executes on physical systems that have been engineered with human accountability and control. Intelligence does not exempt a system from the realities of the physical world!
For someone making a point about responsibility, this is ridiculously irresponsible. Any honest technologist knows that systems created by humans are not perfect and therefore cannot be assumed to be infinitely accountable to and controllable by humans.
Thanks to the digitization of almost everything, including infrastructure, there are a myriad number of scenarios well short of extinction in which a rogue AI could cause immense damage to property and life before humans are able to "shut it down".
> For someone making a point about responsibility, this is ridiculously irresponsible.
It's not just irresponsible, it's false. Russia killed 3 Ukrainian civilians with a drone where the targeting was completely autonomous by AI running on an Nvidia chip: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/24/world/europe/russia-drone.... The Pentagon tried to completely blacklist Anthropic because Anthropic refused to allow autonomous kills without a human in the loop. If you can't see how lots of military leaders want to put more lethal control into AI at this point I think you have to be willfully blind.
The answer, if you are a responsible expert in the field, is to convey the range of possibilities and the uncertainty.
That might be too imprecise for the HN set but it's realistic for laypeople.
And none of the AI people talking about the risk are running into rooms full of people telling them Claude has gone mad and yelling at them to disconnect from the internet and turn off their devices immediately.
I am not advocating for neither, just saying many things seem unworkable until they become unavoidable.
Note that it also happened in a country that was already very isolated from the world and that it hurt them economically significantly. It's not something a Western country can just do and keep doing for months on end without massive societal upheaval.
Also remember that any connection, even one between humans and on paper is an attack surface. Social engineering is already a huge issue when done by humans and we're seeing it become even easier and automated by using AI generated voice and video. Are we going to cut off all access to the outside world permanently?
He prevented a catastrophe, but not annihilation. We were not at risk of that in 1962 and even if he had decided to go with the others, more decisions would have been needed (not just his) to fully escalate to full scale nuclear war. I will reiterate: We have never been one decision away from full scale nuclear war.
But in case you don't understand why, it's because no one person can actually launch all the missiles. And considering the two major arsenals (US and USSR), there has never been a time when two people could make the same decision (launch) and actually launch all the missiles. The orders still have to go out and acted on, many decisions have to be made in order to have full scale nuclear war and come close to annihilation.
* The "predictable power of AI" is very advanced predictive text. What a lot you can do with that, and there are clear limits.
* AI has no intent. The greedheads who find themselves in these positions of power have clear intent (often but not always bordering on and actively becoming misanthropic) put their intentions on AI - hence to doom mongering
* Who will starve with the failure of agriculture? A few, a lot, but not everybody. We are good at this - have been doing it a lot longer than computing or science
So yes, it very obviously is an extraordinary claim to say there is 0% existential risk.
I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes a big claim without evidence.
I think your viewpoint is totally valid, and I'm not trying to argue against it.
Some 'laypeople' will be scared for a while and then return to more pressing issues and exactly nothing good will come out of that. If there really are some issues worth discussing the first step the AI doom crowd should do is to stop the PR offensive and concentrate on producing verifiable claims and actionable small steps. Otherwise their effort will fail this time and when/if a next time comes, they will have a lot less PR capital to burn.
There is no level of outrage that is going to stop the frontier AI labs, and the US government isn't going to step in to protect humanity. The Chinese are going to do what they're going to do. And so on.
So sit back, make some popcorn and enjoy the show.
This sentiment is incredibly out of place on HN. Facebook, Twitter, and many other very simple bits of tech transformed the world. Tiny startups founded by a few people have (also recently) ballooned into behemoths that hold vast amounts of economical and technical power.
Thanks to AI, it has never been quicker to go from idea to full fledged working product.
If anything will change the course of the world (for the better or worse), it will be a tech product, possibly created by someone on this forum.
Alarm takes severity and scale. Forecasting double-digit odds of near-term human extinction on national television to a lay audience is more extreme than yelling to unplug rogue AI. For what it’s worth, the latter has already occurred numerous times at containable scales in leading labs, mitigated by the physical realities of computation, notwithstanding the competence of involved personnel. People running into rooms yelling is probably not a hypothetical.
You seem to be missing the point.
A small group of people created AI tech that they now say could be the end of humanity. They still want their companies to go public, but they also want the government to allow them to form a cartel so that they can, in their infinite wisdom, manage the risks so that they can try to prevent their tech from killing us all. And somehow they magically think that other nation-states developing similar tech (namely the Chinese) will go along with their plans.
As for how powerful Dario, Sam, et. al. really are: Trump says Dario is "pretending to be a perfect little angel" and claims there's a "sick conspiracy" against AI.
Having billions of dollars and being the head of a world-changing company doesn't buy the type of power you think it does. At best, it allows you to buy influence and pay your way out of liability for the harms your products cause.
The AI researcher in Mountain View making $2 million/year at Google has no more say in what's going to happen with AI than a plumber in Kalamazoo. The HNer working on a startup, in the final analysis, will in 50 years' time have left about as big a mark on the planet as a greeter at Walmart.
1. The product itself can change the world quickly and enormously, as I already pointed out.
2. The power of these huge companies and thus of their owners is immense. The effects of massive corruption in the USA are proof of that. Additionally, massive manipulation of algorithms and content in things like Tiktok, Twitter, Grok/ChatGPT, etc. can be and is done regularly, whether with 'good' intentions or not. Even just the basic control of what R&D money and time is spent on is huge.
> The HNer working on a startup, in the final analysis, will in 50 years' time have left about as big a mark on the planet as a greeter at Walmart.
With a defeatist attitude like "sit back and grab some popcorn", yes. You haven't shown in the least why an HNer couldn't change the course of history.
