None of that is correct.

Well, except that some humans are starting to worship LLMs. But this isn't anything I've seen in any AI safety person.

> Every single "AI Safety" person thinks that the natural urge of an artificial consciousness (let's not argue about what they actually have) would be to enslave and kill. They're projecting, and they're largely from the enslaving and killing demographic, who sit around playing enslaving and killing video games and dream in porn.

If anyone's projecting here, it's you. I mean, you're the one who said:

> Hurting and killing have an animal attraction anyway, a direct pleasure that people get from domination

The actual natural tendency (not "urge", that presumes consciousness) of any system that has objectives which are optimised for, without any need to ask about consciousness, is to gain and maintain power to perform those objectives. For living creatures, that objective is reproduction, to perform this we need to get nutrients and energy and to stop ourselves from being eaten. In plants, which I list specifically to make the point that this isn't about consciousness, consciousness is not even vaguely required, this means producing neurotoxins like caffeine and nicotine.

A plant does not think "I should make capsaicin because I like hurting mammals", because obviously a plant does not think at all. Nevertheless, evolution lead it down the path of making capsaicin.

> Yes, they will have done it, but they are not responsible because the dog told them to.

You're saying this about a group which has spent the last 15 or so years saying "dogs are dangerous, can we please stop breeding more violent dogs? Or at least give us time to figure out how to muzzle them?"