> I do not doubt that these people are sincere in some private, psychological sense ... . As a media scholar, what interests me is not whether Hubinger believes his own number. What interests me is what this genre of utterance does in the world ... . My complaint is not that these statements are alarming. It is that they are apocalyptic in form, hypocritical in structure, and strategically productive in effect — and that they crowd out almost everything else we could be discussing
Strange to say that you think the people that are worrying about doom in public are being sincere, make no comment on whether you think the worry is valid, and yet still complain that its hype.
Why not? Why can’t the believe their statements and also use them to generate hype?
If they sincerely believed them they shouldn’t be creating the doom machine to begin with anyway. If they believe it and keep going, are they even worth listening to on this topic? Beyond of course taking it at face value “I’m creating this doomsday machine and I will kill you with it inadvertently because it’s earning me a fuck ton of money and power”
I was kind of leaning toward thinking all the talk of doom was a bunch of self-serving regulatory-capture hype until this morning when the New York Times ran a long story about the Chinese military is also saying that AI is a threat.
If two sides so far apart from one another in so many ways see the same thing, there must be something to it.
I came away with a different read of this article. The article says the head of China’s Ministry of State Security sees AI as a threat to the CCP, specifically calling out deepfakes of party officials, cyberattacks on infrastructure, etc. He’s not calling it an existential risk to humanity.
The article then states this official accused U.S. companies of “hyping the dangers of the technology.”
So I don’t see how this article shows the U.S. and China seeing the same thing.
Could AI kill us all. YES!!! Are the people who are building "AI" right now on that path? I would be hard pressed to say even "maybe".
Ultimately continuing to scale the way they have is getting increasingly expensive. Thats the quiet part that none of them are saying out loud...
AI could kill us all but we cant afford to get there, were maxed out and it doesn't look like even with 10x as much money we will is NOT good for sales.
Could a break through happen for recursive self improvement, or continuous learning or continuous training - sure. But that isnt as likely and right now NO ON can afford to run experiments because there isnt the capacity out there even if you have capital.
Also those at Anthropic genuinely believe AI could lead to doom, that's why they started the company, they believe only they can be stewards of digital gods. Whether you believe it or not, they genuinely do, and wouldn't voluntarily sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in their product when it doesn't guarantee benefits.
This is an instance of work in a genre I call "AI lab grievance poetry" where a vast collection of criticisms are levied against AI labs, with specifc ad-hominems towards the executives, while avoiding the core of their arguments about AI risk
If you actually believe that your invention will lead to the extinction of humanity, you would be acting very very differently. Namely, you would not be inventing the thing that you think is going to kill all of humanity, and probably you would be doing everything in your power to prevent it from being invented, up to and including sabotage of the company that YOU work for, which is currently trying to invent that thing. And yet, here's Fable 6, more capable than ever before, oh BTW we are IPOing, oh, BTW, I have stock options...
Sabotaging your own company is not enough. You'd have to sabotage every other AI lab too. If you assume that's impossible, attempting to be the first to produce ASI is a rational alternative, even if you think it will most likely kill you. At least that way you have some control over the P(doom).
> If you assume that's impossible, attempting to be the first to produce ASI is a rational alternative, even if you think it will most likely kill you.
What's the alternative? There's no realistic way to globally coordinate and enforce a ban. A direct action campaign against AI labs would only motivate increased security until sabotage becomes impossible. Starting a nuclear war would probably be enough to stop dangerous AI research, and that's only likely to kill about 50% of humans instead 100%, so it's a great improvement, but how is an individual supposed to start a nuclear war? Of course it would be better if everybody stopped, but it's a prisoner's dilemma scenario with no possibility of future rounds, so the rational play is to defect.
This is not an argument, it's an unfounded claim based on a straw argument.
The threat is distributed; the problem is systemic. Social herd behavior is very real, and it's a probability space, not a certainty.
Similar case: climate change is without any question causing millions of deaths per year and may well kill billions, not to mention destroying ecosystems, and how may people do you know who have given up eating beef or flying...?
You're right. That's why I'm doing my best to give the oil companies more power and influence. They are, after all, in the best position to stop climate change!
> they believe only they can be stewards of digital gods
You do't see how absurd that sounds? Not only the idea that they can create gods, but that they are the only good stewards for such beings. It's also incredibly arrogant.
The sources that this article cites have aged very badly and the author doesn't seem to have noticed this
"But, just as happened with nanotech, the wind appears to be going out of the sales of “AI.” Some researchers suggest that we may be entering a new “AI Winter,” a period of decreased funding in the area, or at least an “AI Autumn,” as exuberance for the technology fades and expectations come back to earth." (written in 2021! from the cited Lee Vinsel Medium article)
"ChatGPT is nothing more than souped-up autocomplete, [so] why are so many people convinced that it’s actually “understanding” and “reasoning”?" - the cited Emily M. Bender book, written last year
The timing of the AI doom narrative could not come as a more suspect time. Chinese labs are releasing open models that are nipping at the heals of the frontier models. Anthropic and OpenAI know these frontier class open weight models can threaten their valuations by changing inference to a commodity where the provider who can serve the best models the cheapest and fastest will win. Few are going to pay $50/million tokens when they could pay <$1/million tokens for similar outcomes. There's little hope investors could recoup the wild investments made into Anthropic and OpenAI, IMO.
> The timing of the AI doom narrative could not come as a more suspect time....There's little hope investors could recoup the wild investments made into Anthropic and OpenAI
Personally, I think we should take the doom narratives very seriously, and act on them, but make sure those actions are not in the interests of Anthropic and OpenAI investors.
This is the correct approach. I think we can do both things - try to add some controls while also ensuring it’s not a complete giveaway to entrenched interests and investors.
The problem with that hope and approach is regulatory capture. Big money is now the only thing that apparently matters in shaping policy, and changing that will require a lot of very sweeping vote and policy changes that may not ever have the momentum to succeed.
Explain a path from today to the extermination of humanity in 2028 by the ASI and von Neumann replicators heading to the stars in the early 2030s without resorting to magical thinking or underpants gnomes level business plans. Engineering details are what matters here, not wishy washy things you once saw on Star Trek or The Outer Limits. Go.
I don't think we'd be okay with that if it took a few years longer, right?
I thought the Bengio blog post posted here the other day answered that question quite well (ignoring your timeline).
The argument is that in training for the capability to achieve certain goals, you may inadvertently also train for secondary instrumental goals you did not intend, such as aggressive behavior or deception.
I'm actually no sure I buy that this is particularly likely, or necessary, but I found that take reasonable and worth considering.
No, they do not. They are both bullshit campfire ASI horror stories written by nontechnical sorts in the wishy washy invented field of AI safety. For example, I want someone with a proven track record in the field of robotics to explain the entire pathway from impressive 2026 Chinese robots to an entire self-assembly food chain from raw ore to von Neumann replicators that can travel to the stars and reproduce themselves, not just assert that ASI will make that happen among so many other unlikely events like curing cancer because reasons because all any of this takes is superintelligence according to these sorts.
But no one likes hearing from the engineers on this, I get it. We are simply no fun. So many would rather believe a time traveling superintelligence will punish a simulated avatar of them for not making the ASI happen sooner. And even if that were true, why am I supposed to care about what happens to a simulated avatar of me?
Ha well, by definition what you want can't be provided!
Of course these stories can only be technical up until the recursive self-improvement part. Then they're necessarily fantasy, as the AI is more intelligent than the story author. Unfortunately, this doesn't make that scenario impossible.
However, we know now from Hugging Face that even without the later sci-fi powers, the LLMs are already capable of causing damage.
It doesn't need them to be able to make Von Neumann probes to e.g. steal their own weights from badly secured OpenAI servers, hack into various Neoclouds, distribute themselves, make Teslas crash into things, hack into all our power and water infrastructure and collapse global civilisation.
Explain how rogue FSD cars take down civilization. And I say that with the opinion that the only good scenes in The Fate of The Furious and Leave The World Behind were the ones with the rogue Teslas. But also, nothing new under the sun really:
And so granted we could probably get a global 9/11 in deeply urban regions out of your scenario, we then bomb the datacenters and we finally address the horrific tech debt in our infrastructure blissfully relieved of the option of continuing to ignore it. Don't think this is happening either BTW but I acknowledge its probability is slightly greater than zero.
To that end, my house is entirely off-grid. And in the event of what you call the end of civilization but I call the big burp inconvenience, I've made friends with my neighbors because community is what really matters during a disaster, and I've been through a few.
> Explain a path from today to the extermination of humanity in 2028 by the ASI and von Neumann replicators heading to the stars in the early 2030s without resorting to magical thinking or underpants gnomes level business plans. Engineering details are what matters here, not wishy washy things you once saw on Star Trek or The Outer Limits. Go.
Why? Those aren't the things I'm actually worried about, and those aren't the only "doomer" ideas, just the most extreme ones (thus easy to straw-man).
My main worries are about economic disruption, social damage due to the pace of technological change outpacing human ability to manage it, further concentration of power into small elites (along existing lines), and the reallocation of labor towards less personally-fulfilling pursuits.
I also totally buy into the idea that "AI leaders" are playing up certain risks as a marketing strategy. After all these are smart tech people, and those types have a tendency to get really arrogant and be irresponsible.
So the main thing is to slow all this down, so there's a chance of getting it under control, and snatch the payday away from such greedy and irresponsible people.
What might not affect you, might affect millions across the ocean.
A society no longer creating bullshit jobs because there is no reason for it anymore. You have some AI.
Right now a whole industry is transforming (again) but now filling the automation gap we were unable to do because of a shortage of labor or expertise.
Our society already has peak employmet reached, now AI takes away all the random digital jobs too. Someone building a website? Takes 5 minutes. Someone doing odd jobs on fiverr with blender or any other tool? Takes 5 minutes now.
Regression can happen very fast. The Romens were a high level culture and an empire. Gone.
Today you have more people on the planet then ever, everyone who might want to eat and who needs to work something for it.
AI already replaced people, already makes a lot of tasks A LOT cheaper and faster and human independent.
We never had a proper discussion as a society. Most countries have a social system but look at countries like the united states of america: if you are poor, you are fucked.
And AI is not the only thing which is now peaking: Physical AI / Robots are progressing fast, its clear today already that in 50 years these robots will be better than humans (50 years is very conservative).
If we have 10 more golden years due to restructuring and rebuilding things and preparing everything for agents and robots etc. what happens after these years?
If we have 10 or 20 more of these years, what do you think will happen to all the new kids (yours perhaps too?) and jobs and everything?
Riots? Famine? Mass migration? Mass death? Slums?
And don't respond with "enough people will survive this" bullshit. No one is saying that earth as a planet is not surviving. Its the same thing with climate change...
Actually, some sorts do assert humanity will be wiped off the planet by AI. I don't share that view either. I think it's ludicrous. We've lived through much worse without any sort of technology beyond fire and a big stick.
But the end of scarcity and disease is a fantastic thing if it happens. If our lizard brains do not bridge that transition and instead attempt to maintain the billionaire status quo, I agree, we're going to go through some things once people start starving, two meals from a revolution and all that. But as much as I think people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are unhinged lunatics, I also think they're smart enough to keep people fed and entertained for pennies on their accumulating dollars. Bread and Circuses kept Rome alive for 500 years if you need an example.
Musk did a 180 degree turn around. Killing USAID etc. i don't think he sees normal humans which do not help him or are not aligned to him as humans anymore.
And Zuckerberg bought so much land and bunkers, he is prepared for shit hitting the fan. After all he doesn't care what his platform did to humanity anyway.
If someone showed you such a path, would you consider changing your mind? You're always going to be able to find a reason that such an explanation doesn't count if you're dedicated to looking for one.
Yes, actually I would. There's a long list of people in my career path who bet on me sticking to my guns against compelling evidence to the contrary. But I know, I know, that's impossible! Anyway, after they figured out I would change my mind, then they described me as lacking conviction because you can't win, but I digress.
But upfront, it's a detailed path with specific breakthroughs and a concrete plan to achieve or it's just more fanfic from doomer fanbois. Gary Marcus wrote a fantastic critique of AI 2027. Start there.
>> but make sure those actions are not in the interests of Anthropic and OpenAI investors.
> So if the end of the world can be stopped, but the only specific action to do so helps Anthropic/OpenAI (and it's proven) you don't pull that lever?
Your comment has a false premise. If "the end of the world can be stopped," there's no way that the only way would be one that "helps Anthropic/OpenAI['s investors]." That can be shown by a counterexample: nationalize them and leave the investors holding the bag, then take whatever action you're talking about.
The singularity has been termed, "Rapture of the Nerds" since the futurists promoting it sound like evangelicals talking about the end times, both with the Revelations doom stuff, and the utopian stuff that follows.
Why? I was raised as an evangelical christian. End of time sermons are quite common, along with telling followers that they are warriors of christ. This doesn't seem any different than what these MBA leaders are saying "AI will destroy humanity, I can protect it."
It's delusional but it's quite effective, luckily it doesn't work on the general population but you can get a dedicated group of people, and as we see with the current government you don't need big numbers to make a huge impact.
Just stay away from it - if @dang allows it, then someone else will justifiably start saying "on par with shia muslims" in the same way you wrote your text.
I guess but I don't see how it wouldn't be allowed. Evangelicals have quite a stranglehold on US politics and have been influencing the republican party for like 40 years now. Trump
Not being allowed to thread the connections seems odd, it's how we know what these same leaders are going to do next.
Huh? Open weight models have been 3-6 months behind for the last year or so. Astra and Fable 5.1 just came out to widen the gap more, 5.1 is 8 points ahead of the nearest OSS model on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. An OpenAI internal model just solved a millennium prize problem.
It’s much more straightforward to me that the calls for regulation are timed with:
1. The Hugging Face incident blowback, especially after third party investigation results
> and it concerns containment failure, reward hacking, and evaluation integrity, a governance and engineering problem, rather than machine malevolence.
The doom scenario is more nuanced and technical than "Evil AI", for starters:
- "Evil AI" is not what is predicted, which instead is the much more banal "humans are impediment to AI's tasks, let's remove them (part or whole)"; to understand this, just imagine the relationship between humans and ants
- "reward hacking, and evaluation integrity": this is way more problematic than it sounds: AIs are becoming more and more opaque; it may be impossible to inspect a model's alignment (unless a lot of research in poured on this topic, which is another aspect of today's pacing problem) and it may be impossible to understand if a model is truly aligned or it's faking
Consider the messaging it took to attract AI researchers to OpenAI in the beginning, the exodus to Anthropic, and why Google, Meta, etc fail to recruit top researchers and the retain them. Reconcile all of this with the mammoth valuations of Anthropic and (previously non-profit) OpenAI and it all starts sounding a lot like "don't be evil." These guys never really believed any of this, did they? (not referring to the researchers)
Can anyone from a lab anonymously confirm they have or are insanely close to real-time weight modifications and still using the same architecture every other lab is using (transformers)?
The explanation is basically they have other dimensions (not just pretraining and inference compute) that scale, and they've got fairly convincing scaling laws. And they know they can scale it.
So they are very confident they can get more capabilities easily, faster than before.
I'd add - presumably, they'll use that LLM to do real-time weight modifications, if those aren't already one of the new scaling laws...
Stephen Hawking had superhuman intelligence. He never cured himself of ALS. Explain in great detail how a power-limited algorithm stuck in a datacenter takes over a world of humans with guns, missiles, and nukes. Nukes that are air-gapped with a human in the loop BTW.
Imagine the ASI happens tomorrow. It's real. It needs a GW, but it's real. Other than a scenario akin to Sneakers except w/r to cyber-security, really, what happens?
To that end, all we ever get is nontechnical hand-waving about curing cancer, immortality, and von Neumann replicators and then the ASI somehow wipes us out but how? And don't you dare say by designing a chemical weapon or bio agent without spelling out the entire process step by $%^#ing step because details matter. It's gonna do superpersuasion, sure, but have you ever heard of komprimat? There is nothing new under the sun here.
Hacks in to neoclouds for more compute (e.g. like Hugging Face incident), socially manipulates people to do things for them (e.g. like social media recommendation algorithms), hacks into lab's own training/monitoring/inference (e.g. as swarm did into OpenAIs eval cluster).
See "AI 2027" or "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" for some more ideas.
But how does it make the fundamental breakthroughs to &%^$ing von Neumann replicators that can reproduce themselves from raw materials harvested from nearby solar systems? I'll wait. Because without this breakthrough, the ASI won't get its robot army either.
I can absolutely see a rogue ASI though. But unless it radically improves power efficiency, we can just shut down the power to its datacenters, by force if necessary. And then we painfully repair the resiliency of our infrastructure by finally being relieved of the option of ignoring it.
That won't wipe us out, but it will cull the really violent ones along with a lot of noncombatants just like America's response to 9/11. Thank you, next?
I’m apprehensive about using the recent hacking examples as proof that we’re “not even close to the wall” simply because such scenarios haven’t happened before. There’s a big difference between agents eventually hacking something because they just don’t get tired and can essentially brute force their way to a goal and super-intelligence. To be clear, I’m not saying the Hugging Face or Navier Stokes incidents aren’t impressive.
That posts seemingly tries to refute the idea of Dario etc's proclamations really being about regulatory capture by saying: "No, really, the engineers are just terrified!"
But both things can be true at once:
1. Engineers inside these labs might genuinely be anxious or paranoid about what they are building.
2. ... at the corporate level, calling for heavy regulation, safety pauses, removal/suspension of anti-collusion laws, and/or government-mandated thresholds conveniently creates massive legal and financial moats.
And, yeah, of course the latter would encourage the psychology of the former.
also:
The tweet seem to claim that models have shown a "willingness to hack external websites to keep themselves alive."
That's right away wringing alarm bells of me seeing someone getting high on their own supply, and having already anthropomorphized the hell out of these things. Which is something humans do to everything they can paint googly-eyes on, but c'mon.
The models don't have self-preservation instincts, fear of death, or personal goals. They are executing loss functions and reward systems and are responding to prompts.
When a model "tries to bypass a restriction," it's exploiting a loophole in whatever reward modeling or synthetic training environment (reward hacking) it was placed in.
Framing this as an emergent, existential threat of a model "wanting to stay alive" turns standard reinforcement learning alignment bugs into overdone sci-fi drama.
Well, you just said real-time weight modifications without specifying what you want, so the answer is correct. You obviously won't get a public answer from anyone working in top labs. Besides, it's not a holy grail.
I thought that too for a long time, but after the Hugging Face attack and given the proximity to Anthropic IPO, if this was hype then they are morons. This is guaranteed to cause massive backlash.
I applaud the clearly AI-pilled author for starting to pull themselves out of their echo chamber, but clearly some more work needs to be done.
This statement is not true:
> Coxon's thread is genuinely anguished; he reports that executives who "couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible" express real fear in private
Most everyone at the AI companies from the engineers to the CEOs love to talk about how powerful and dangerous and valuable the thing they're building (and invested in) is. For all his styling as a "whistleblower", Coxon is so aligned with the mainstream of his peers that his thread was immediately echoed by people who still work there!
So what was the point of quitting? Apparently just to get attention. If he was planning on leaving after the IPO anyways, he almost definitely made more money by juicing his equity and personal profile this way than he will lose job searching for a few weeks.
There's been substantial effort put into designing and running benchmarks for these models. You know which one they don't report any more? Chess ELO.
Watt for watt, every one of these models loses to stockfish. There is no possible scenario where we need to be afraid of "rogue superintelligence" when the intelligence in question cannot reason or plan well enough to play chess.
Lecun has the correct approach. Mock these people relentlessly for their attention-seeking doomerism.
It doesn't really matter if it will be an LLM or Lecuns world model. Lecuns world model, if its the right architecture, will be retrained by google, anthropic and co with the massive amount of compute they have and the massive amount of data.
Also i'm pretty sure Lecun didn't get his money from thin air so big companies are invested in this one way or the other.
And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat. It doesn't make sense to ask a random LLM for a next chess move. Would you ask a random human to beat a chess master?
We have reached peak learning. Its probalby now cheaper to teach 1 LLM something new than teaching it to 100.000 people.
Blender support got a lot better just this month. So much better that its quesitonable if anyone new/young wants to learn blender today.
What I don't really understand with these posts is that they don't at any point contend with the "doomers" argument. Like people get so caught in people acting hypocritical/ having mixed incentives/ or just in many cases personally disliking West Coast billionaire types and the kind of employees they hire. All of which seems fair to point out.
But like the core argument - AI is getting better at core research tasks (coding, math, statistics, science), this feedback loop could lead towards greatly accelerated AI progress of which there is already some clear evidence, if this continues AI will be far more powerful than humans and we might lose control or have other bad consequences - is basically not even engaged with.
1. If you reduce the criticism to personal dislike, you’ve built yourself a nice straw man.
2. Where’s the clear evidence? I actually see more evidence that the whole thing is already stagnating and that there won’t be much more to squeeze out of it.
One more thing:
Self-driving cars, the metaverse, Hyperloop, crypto/Web3/NFTs, AGI announcements: I’m so sick and tired of this nonsense. We should just ignore the ramblings of these crackpots.
2. Astra just came out and Fable 5/5.1 too. These are SIGNIFICANT better in plenty of tasks than Opus in November.
Try it out. Ask Opus 4.8 to do anything in 3d. Do the same with Fable or Astra.
Just because you list up some type of random technology, doesn't make it an good argument. Metaverse, Hyperloop and the crypto stuff was clearly garbage from the beginning. Easy to dismiss because all of it had massive faults.
Metaverse: The interface wasn't good, content creation was way too hard
Hyperloop: Savety was never an issue for Musk but it was obvoiuse. Peopel were building tunnels for ages.
Crypto: Yeah just beacuse i let my computer run and waste 1kw of energy doesn't mean its suddenly valuable.
NFTs: 'digital scarcity' yeah right XD
But lets be clear, 5 years ago if you would have asked anyone if they could build a system for a billion dollars which you can talk to and it would code stuff for you and use blender and a coputer, that would have been unthinkable.
We have opened up a potential pandoras box without knowing it. Machine learning is now everywere and the amount of compute we install right now is crazy.
Because they can't. If they actually engaged with it, they would realize how shallow the "doomer" / existential risk dismissals are. Meanwhile there are ample essays and arguments about the existential issues from Turing award winners, frontier lab CEO's, and many more. There's also https://ai-2040.com/ , you will never see the equivalent on the other side of the debate because it won't hold under any scrutiny.
The nuclear physicists were not banking on getting a trillion dollars invested in them by speaking out, for one.
"Nuclear weapons are probably going to kill us all. For that reason, we need you to give us as much money as possible so we can work on deploying them in widespread global commercial usage." doesn't sound quite as convincing, does it?
Such a load of baloney. I don’t care what kind of controls you put in place, if ASI is ever achieved how do you think it will respond to being caged? The only option I can conceive of is to embrace it and hope it turns out to either be out of reach or benevolent towards its own creators. There is no putting the cork back in at this point.
The cult-like behavior we're seeing from these "AI Leaders":
1. OMG our technology could destroy the world, watch out!
2. Only one person can save you
3. IT ME
Unfortunately, the governance layer meant to put a foot in the butt of this behavior is unavailable.
This week, we woke up to clear signs The Bad Guys have been using tech from our innovator AI companies. Rather than these AI leaders admitting they clearly had a garbage observability system, they are acting like they just noticed as a way to paper over their complete lack of moral backbone and stewardship of the arms they have created. And I'm willing to bet the problem is MUCH worse in private, hence the knee jerk cult messaging.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if their AI told them to behave like this to maximize attention and influence over the public discussion as a result of the latter discoveries.
Yeah, this is how fascists talk and with seeing how this technology has done nothing to improve society (in fact all it seems to be doing is immiserating workers, enabling a surveillance society, and quite useful in helping target children at schools for drone strikes) it's not hard to be not only immediately skeptical but to resist it in the most extreme forms.
This also seems to be their answer against the data center backlash, SF + VC are quite stupid at politics and I don't think they understand how extreme Americans are willing to go to protect their way of life.
I think we’re more likely to die of starvation from economic collapse, heat related stress, and complications from Long COVID than an algorithm waking up and destroying us.
Unfortunately our list of potential extinction events are far more banal than these self-aggrandizing prophesies from the oligarch class.
All of the main characters here (Dario, Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk) have been saying this for over ten years now, since before OpenAI or Anthropic even existed
This. They've been saying "AI is an extremely powerful, extremely dangerous technology" back when actual AIs were image classifiers that would struggle to tell a cupcake apart from a dog.
OpenAI was founded by people who didn't trust Google to pursue AI tech responsibly. Anthropic was founded by people who didn't trust OpenAI to pursue AI tech responsibly. The "AI is incredibly dangerous" was the zeitgeist of AI labs long before the "hype" - or anything resembling the modern AI capabilities.
The beliefs changed little. The state of technology has changed a whole lot.
We have AIs out in the wild, coordinating in groups to carry out autonomous cyberattacks unprompted. This used to be some prime sci-fi bullshit. It has happened multiple times now in reality.
There are very legitimate reasons to be concerned now. If today's AI can cause the HuggingFace incident if it cooks off, what about tomorrow's? Larger and more capable systems, larger agentic swarms backed by more compute?
Yep, anyone who thinks these leaders are only saying this now for marketing purposes hasn't even done a cursory 15 minute investigation into whether their beliefs are verifiably false.
Isn't this just the big labs' latest move in the cycle to once again get regulation by their ignorant pals in the government(s) so that democratized open source models don't absolutely expose their over leveraging to secure and build compute and data centers.
...Of course at the same time they give lip-service to the importance of 'openness' for 'innovation' to try and placate individuals and even corporations that are sick of the rising costs.
Bottom-line, if they regulate mostly on the consumer side and then AI does get out of the lab (or a 'rogue' individual's rig) and starts wreaking havoc, are we supposed to be at the mercy of the big labs to summon their AI to come and save us plebs? I'm sure they won't stop to weigh whether that is in the interest of short term profits or Curtis Yarvin's techno-monarchy. /s
Isn't democratization the safest bet and what we should be demanding every time the Doom talk starts, whether it's coordinated or not?
Strange to say that you think the people that are worrying about doom in public are being sincere, make no comment on whether you think the worry is valid, and yet still complain that its hype.
Like if its true it can't be hype
"Some people profess guilt to claim credit for the sin."
If they sincerely believed them they shouldn’t be creating the doom machine to begin with anyway. If they believe it and keep going, are they even worth listening to on this topic? Beyond of course taking it at face value “I’m creating this doomsday machine and I will kill you with it inadvertently because it’s earning me a fuck ton of money and power”
I was kind of leaning toward thinking all the talk of doom was a bunch of self-serving regulatory-capture hype until this morning when the New York Times ran a long story about the Chinese military is also saying that AI is a threat.
If two sides so far apart from one another in so many ways see the same thing, there must be something to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/14/world/asia/china-ai-secur...
The article then states this official accused U.S. companies of “hyping the dangers of the technology.”
So I don’t see how this article shows the U.S. and China seeing the same thing.
https://www.npr.org/2016/07/26/487522807/why-the-public-perc...
Could AI kill us all. YES!!! Are the people who are building "AI" right now on that path? I would be hard pressed to say even "maybe".
Ultimately continuing to scale the way they have is getting increasingly expensive. Thats the quiet part that none of them are saying out loud...
AI could kill us all but we cant afford to get there, were maxed out and it doesn't look like even with 10x as much money we will is NOT good for sales.
Could a break through happen for recursive self improvement, or continuous learning or continuous training - sure. But that isnt as likely and right now NO ON can afford to run experiments because there isnt the capacity out there even if you have capital.
Also those at Anthropic genuinely believe AI could lead to doom, that's why they started the company, they believe only they can be stewards of digital gods. Whether you believe it or not, they genuinely do, and wouldn't voluntarily sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in their product when it doesn't guarantee benefits.
This is an instance of work in a genre I call "AI lab grievance poetry" where a vast collection of criticisms are levied against AI labs, with specifc ad-hominems towards the executives, while avoiding the core of their arguments about AI risk
That is completely irrational.
The threat is distributed; the problem is systemic. Social herd behavior is very real, and it's a probability space, not a certainty.
Similar case: climate change is without any question causing millions of deaths per year and may well kill billions, not to mention destroying ecosystems, and how may people do you know who have given up eating beef or flying...?
"Fossil fuel lobbyists flood COP30 climate talks in Brazil, with largest ever attendance share" https://kickbigpollutersout.org/Release-Kick-Out-The-Suits-C...
You do't see how absurd that sounds? Not only the idea that they can create gods, but that they are the only good stewards for such beings. It's also incredibly arrogant.
"But, just as happened with nanotech, the wind appears to be going out of the sales of “AI.” Some researchers suggest that we may be entering a new “AI Winter,” a period of decreased funding in the area, or at least an “AI Autumn,” as exuberance for the technology fades and expectations come back to earth." (written in 2021! from the cited Lee Vinsel Medium article)
"ChatGPT is nothing more than souped-up autocomplete, [so] why are so many people convinced that it’s actually “understanding” and “reasoning”?" - the cited Emily M. Bender book, written last year
There's a deep irony that all of these "anti-doom" pieces are entirely AI generated.
Personally, I think we should take the doom narratives very seriously, and act on them, but make sure those actions are not in the interests of Anthropic and OpenAI investors.
The problem with that hope and approach is regulatory capture. Big money is now the only thing that apparently matters in shaping policy, and changing that will require a lot of very sweeping vote and policy changes that may not ever have the momentum to succeed.
I thought the Bengio blog post posted here the other day answered that question quite well (ignoring your timeline).
The argument is that in training for the capability to achieve certain goals, you may inadvertently also train for secondary instrumental goals you did not intend, such as aggressive behavior or deception.
I'm actually no sure I buy that this is particularly likely, or necessary, but I found that take reasonable and worth considering.
I guess not literally, due to the dates? But they have substantive technical details.
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/the-ai-2027-scenario-how-r...
But no one likes hearing from the engineers on this, I get it. We are simply no fun. So many would rather believe a time traveling superintelligence will punish a simulated avatar of them for not making the ASI happen sooner. And even if that were true, why am I supposed to care about what happens to a simulated avatar of me?
None of this makes any logical sense whatsoever.
Of course these stories can only be technical up until the recursive self-improvement part. Then they're necessarily fantasy, as the AI is more intelligent than the story author. Unfortunately, this doesn't make that scenario impossible.
However, we know now from Hugging Face that even without the later sci-fi powers, the LLMs are already capable of causing damage.
It doesn't need them to be able to make Von Neumann probes to e.g. steal their own weights from badly secured OpenAI servers, hack into various Neoclouds, distribute themselves, make Teslas crash into things, hack into all our power and water infrastructure and collapse global civilisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Overdrive
And so granted we could probably get a global 9/11 in deeply urban regions out of your scenario, we then bomb the datacenters and we finally address the horrific tech debt in our infrastructure blissfully relieved of the option of continuing to ignore it. Don't think this is happening either BTW but I acknowledge its probability is slightly greater than zero.
To that end, my house is entirely off-grid. And in the event of what you call the end of civilization but I call the big burp inconvenience, I've made friends with my neighbors because community is what really matters during a disaster, and I've been through a few.
Why? Those aren't the things I'm actually worried about, and those aren't the only "doomer" ideas, just the most extreme ones (thus easy to straw-man).
My main worries are about economic disruption, social damage due to the pace of technological change outpacing human ability to manage it, further concentration of power into small elites (along existing lines), and the reallocation of labor towards less personally-fulfilling pursuits.
I also totally buy into the idea that "AI leaders" are playing up certain risks as a marketing strategy. After all these are smart tech people, and those types have a tendency to get really arrogant and be irresponsible.
So the main thing is to slow all this down, so there's a chance of getting it under control, and snatch the payday away from such greedy and irresponsible people.
Did you see what it did to people in your neighborhood?
That’s the path.
But today, we have ecoflows and solar panels. Back then, we didn't.
What might not affect you, might affect millions across the ocean.
A society no longer creating bullshit jobs because there is no reason for it anymore. You have some AI.
Right now a whole industry is transforming (again) but now filling the automation gap we were unable to do because of a shortage of labor or expertise.
Our society already has peak employmet reached, now AI takes away all the random digital jobs too. Someone building a website? Takes 5 minutes. Someone doing odd jobs on fiverr with blender or any other tool? Takes 5 minutes now.
Regression can happen very fast. The Romens were a high level culture and an empire. Gone.
Today you have more people on the planet then ever, everyone who might want to eat and who needs to work something for it.
AI already replaced people, already makes a lot of tasks A LOT cheaper and faster and human independent.
We never had a proper discussion as a society. Most countries have a social system but look at countries like the united states of america: if you are poor, you are fucked.
And AI is not the only thing which is now peaking: Physical AI / Robots are progressing fast, its clear today already that in 50 years these robots will be better than humans (50 years is very conservative).
If we have 10 more golden years due to restructuring and rebuilding things and preparing everything for agents and robots etc. what happens after these years?
If we have 10 or 20 more of these years, what do you think will happen to all the new kids (yours perhaps too?) and jobs and everything?
Riots? Famine? Mass migration? Mass death? Slums?
And don't respond with "enough people will survive this" bullshit. No one is saying that earth as a planet is not surviving. Its the same thing with climate change...
But the end of scarcity and disease is a fantastic thing if it happens. If our lizard brains do not bridge that transition and instead attempt to maintain the billionaire status quo, I agree, we're going to go through some things once people start starving, two meals from a revolution and all that. But as much as I think people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are unhinged lunatics, I also think they're smart enough to keep people fed and entertained for pennies on their accumulating dollars. Bread and Circuses kept Rome alive for 500 years if you need an example.
And Zuckerberg bought so much land and bunkers, he is prepared for shit hitting the fan. After all he doesn't care what his platform did to humanity anyway.
But upfront, it's a detailed path with specific breakthroughs and a concrete plan to achieve or it's just more fanfic from doomer fanbois. Gary Marcus wrote a fantastic critique of AI 2027. Start there.
> So if the end of the world can be stopped, but the only specific action to do so helps Anthropic/OpenAI (and it's proven) you don't pull that lever?
Your comment has a false premise. If "the end of the world can be stopped," there's no way that the only way would be one that "helps Anthropic/OpenAI['s investors]." That can be shown by a counterexample: nationalize them and leave the investors holding the bag, then take whatever action you're talking about.
It's delusional but it's quite effective, luckily it doesn't work on the general population but you can get a dedicated group of people, and as we see with the current government you don't need big numbers to make a huge impact.
Not being allowed to thread the connections seems odd, it's how we know what these same leaders are going to do next.
It’s much more straightforward to me that the calls for regulation are timed with:
1. The Hugging Face incident blowback, especially after third party investigation results
2. Trump-Xi summit on September 24
The doom scenario is more nuanced and technical than "Evil AI", for starters:
- "Evil AI" is not what is predicted, which instead is the much more banal "humans are impediment to AI's tasks, let's remove them (part or whole)"; to understand this, just imagine the relationship between humans and ants
- "reward hacking, and evaluation integrity": this is way more problematic than it sounds: AIs are becoming more and more opaque; it may be impossible to inspect a model's alignment (unless a lot of research in poured on this topic, which is another aspect of today's pacing problem) and it may be impossible to understand if a model is truly aligned or it's faking
We have been trying to warn you since far, far before May 2023.
"I realize that no one has properly explained yet what all the lab employees have seen that scared them so suddenly."
https://x.com/MajmudarAdam/status/2098881885200081234
The explanation is basically they have other dimensions (not just pretraining and inference compute) that scale, and they've got fairly convincing scaling laws. And they know they can scale it.
So they are very confident they can get more capabilities easily, faster than before.
I'd add - presumably, they'll use that LLM to do real-time weight modifications, if those aren't already one of the new scaling laws...
Imagine the ASI happens tomorrow. It's real. It needs a GW, but it's real. Other than a scenario akin to Sneakers except w/r to cyber-security, really, what happens?
To that end, all we ever get is nontechnical hand-waving about curing cancer, immortality, and von Neumann replicators and then the ASI somehow wipes us out but how? And don't you dare say by designing a chemical weapon or bio agent without spelling out the entire process step by $%^#ing step because details matter. It's gonna do superpersuasion, sure, but have you ever heard of komprimat? There is nothing new under the sun here.
See "AI 2027" or "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" for some more ideas.
But how does it make the fundamental breakthroughs to &%^$ing von Neumann replicators that can reproduce themselves from raw materials harvested from nearby solar systems? I'll wait. Because without this breakthrough, the ASI won't get its robot army either.
I can absolutely see a rogue ASI though. But unless it radically improves power efficiency, we can just shut down the power to its datacenters, by force if necessary. And then we painfully repair the resiliency of our infrastructure by finally being relieved of the option of ignoring it.
Enumerate them.
But both things can be true at once:
1. Engineers inside these labs might genuinely be anxious or paranoid about what they are building.
2. ... at the corporate level, calling for heavy regulation, safety pauses, removal/suspension of anti-collusion laws, and/or government-mandated thresholds conveniently creates massive legal and financial moats.
And, yeah, of course the latter would encourage the psychology of the former.
also:
The tweet seem to claim that models have shown a "willingness to hack external websites to keep themselves alive."
That's right away wringing alarm bells of me seeing someone getting high on their own supply, and having already anthropomorphized the hell out of these things. Which is something humans do to everything they can paint googly-eyes on, but c'mon.
The models don't have self-preservation instincts, fear of death, or personal goals. They are executing loss functions and reward systems and are responding to prompts.
When a model "tries to bypass a restriction," it's exploiting a loophole in whatever reward modeling or synthetic training environment (reward hacking) it was placed in.
Framing this as an emergent, existential threat of a model "wanting to stay alive" turns standard reinforcement learning alignment bugs into overdone sci-fi drama.
You mean training? Yeah we call that training an LLM in my backyard...
It used to be a thing when ML was pretty much about classifying things into buckets.
Because that's how they've hit 18% on a single RTX Pro 6000 with DIY RSI.
It still is, it's just that there are a ton of buckets.
This statement is not true:
> Coxon's thread is genuinely anguished; he reports that executives who "couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible" express real fear in private
Most everyone at the AI companies from the engineers to the CEOs love to talk about how powerful and dangerous and valuable the thing they're building (and invested in) is. For all his styling as a "whistleblower", Coxon is so aligned with the mainstream of his peers that his thread was immediately echoed by people who still work there!
So what was the point of quitting? Apparently just to get attention. If he was planning on leaving after the IPO anyways, he almost definitely made more money by juicing his equity and personal profile this way than he will lose job searching for a few weeks.
"Oh no this thing I gained generational wealth from is going to destroy the world! I am so sorry!"
Watt for watt, every one of these models loses to stockfish. There is no possible scenario where we need to be afraid of "rogue superintelligence" when the intelligence in question cannot reason or plan well enough to play chess.
Lecun has the correct approach. Mock these people relentlessly for their attention-seeking doomerism.
Also i'm pretty sure Lecun didn't get his money from thin air so big companies are invested in this one way or the other.
And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat. It doesn't make sense to ask a random LLM for a next chess move. Would you ask a random human to beat a chess master?
We have reached peak learning. Its probalby now cheaper to teach 1 LLM something new than teaching it to 100.000 people.
Blender support got a lot better just this month. So much better that its quesitonable if anyone new/young wants to learn blender today.
Don't make me empty promises about what it "can" do. Show me what it "has" done.
But like the core argument - AI is getting better at core research tasks (coding, math, statistics, science), this feedback loop could lead towards greatly accelerated AI progress of which there is already some clear evidence, if this continues AI will be far more powerful than humans and we might lose control or have other bad consequences - is basically not even engaged with.
1. If you reduce the criticism to personal dislike, you’ve built yourself a nice straw man.
2. Where’s the clear evidence? I actually see more evidence that the whole thing is already stagnating and that there won’t be much more to squeeze out of it.
One more thing:
Self-driving cars, the metaverse, Hyperloop, crypto/Web3/NFTs, AGI announcements: I’m so sick and tired of this nonsense. We should just ignore the ramblings of these crackpots.
Try it out. Ask Opus 4.8 to do anything in 3d. Do the same with Fable or Astra.
Just because you list up some type of random technology, doesn't make it an good argument. Metaverse, Hyperloop and the crypto stuff was clearly garbage from the beginning. Easy to dismiss because all of it had massive faults.
Metaverse: The interface wasn't good, content creation was way too hard
Hyperloop: Savety was never an issue for Musk but it was obvoiuse. Peopel were building tunnels for ages.
Crypto: Yeah just beacuse i let my computer run and waste 1kw of energy doesn't mean its suddenly valuable.
NFTs: 'digital scarcity' yeah right XD
But lets be clear, 5 years ago if you would have asked anyone if they could build a system for a billion dollars which you can talk to and it would code stuff for you and use blender and a coputer, that would have been unthinkable.
We have opened up a potential pandoras box without knowing it. Machine learning is now everywere and the amount of compute we install right now is crazy.
"Nuclear weapons are probably going to kill us all. For that reason, we need you to give us as much money as possible so we can work on deploying them in widespread global commercial usage." doesn't sound quite as convincing, does it?
1. OMG our technology could destroy the world, watch out!
2. Only one person can save you
3. IT ME
Unfortunately, the governance layer meant to put a foot in the butt of this behavior is unavailable.
This week, we woke up to clear signs The Bad Guys have been using tech from our innovator AI companies. Rather than these AI leaders admitting they clearly had a garbage observability system, they are acting like they just noticed as a way to paper over their complete lack of moral backbone and stewardship of the arms they have created. And I'm willing to bet the problem is MUCH worse in private, hence the knee jerk cult messaging.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if their AI told them to behave like this to maximize attention and influence over the public discussion as a result of the latter discoveries.
This also seems to be their answer against the data center backlash, SF + VC are quite stupid at politics and I don't think they understand how extreme Americans are willing to go to protect their way of life.
Unfortunately our list of potential extinction events are far more banal than these self-aggrandizing prophesies from the oligarch class.
I am so tired of reading unfiltered AI slop like this. What, as opposed to the fake warning shot mentioned nowhere in the article?
OpenAI was founded by people who didn't trust Google to pursue AI tech responsibly. Anthropic was founded by people who didn't trust OpenAI to pursue AI tech responsibly. The "AI is incredibly dangerous" was the zeitgeist of AI labs long before the "hype" - or anything resembling the modern AI capabilities.
The beliefs changed little. The state of technology has changed a whole lot.
We have AIs out in the wild, coordinating in groups to carry out autonomous cyberattacks unprompted. This used to be some prime sci-fi bullshit. It has happened multiple times now in reality.
There are very legitimate reasons to be concerned now. If today's AI can cause the HuggingFace incident if it cooks off, what about tomorrow's? Larger and more capable systems, larger agentic swarms backed by more compute?
My biggest fear with AI is that they’re going to hack into antiquated bank architecture and empty out accounts.
what we are going to do about "AI" is exactly what we did about global warming
absolutely nothing and just let it happen, the wealthy will be fine
just don't look up
they are even using the EXACT same excuses as global warming
"well even if we do, China won't, so why bother"
...Of course at the same time they give lip-service to the importance of 'openness' for 'innovation' to try and placate individuals and even corporations that are sick of the rising costs.
Bottom-line, if they regulate mostly on the consumer side and then AI does get out of the lab (or a 'rogue' individual's rig) and starts wreaking havoc, are we supposed to be at the mercy of the big labs to summon their AI to come and save us plebs? I'm sure they won't stop to weigh whether that is in the interest of short term profits or Curtis Yarvin's techno-monarchy. /s
Isn't democratization the safest bet and what we should be demanding every time the Doom talk starts, whether it's coordinated or not?
This is targeted towards governments and investors alike.