ai has a >10% chance of causing human extinction, according to anthropic big heads.
if that's true, you are wrong.
if that's false, anthropic is dishonest. why trust a dishonest company to be worth anything?
ai has a >10% chance of causing human extinction, according to anthropic big heads.
if that's true, you are wrong.
if that's false, anthropic is dishonest. why trust a dishonest company to be worth anything?
> if that's false, anthropic is dishonest. why trust a dishonest company to be worth anything?
This logic doesn't follow at all.
If their argument is that there is 10% chance of extinction then they also believe there is a 90% chance it won't.
I think that the AI people believe in their own nonsense a bit.
Like - the guy on TV talking about 'AI will destroy everything' ... I don't think he's lying.
I think they are like we here on HN and Reddit and a bit caught up in our own thoughts.
If AI were unleashed, in raw form today, it could cause havoc.
Bad. Maybe very bad but I think we'd get over it.
It would probably trigger a recession (because we are in a bubble - it would pop it), and people would 'blame the AI' for sure.
But it would be a bit dot-com ish kind of recession.
The amplifiers would be geopolitical instability.
>If AI were unleashed, in raw form today, it could cause havoc.
What is "raw form?"
The SOTA models are heavily 'guardrailed' today; they won't let you do all sorts of things.