• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI
    Report

    The case that AI existential-risk warnings may be counterproductive

    In a new essay, the authors argue that sincere warnings about AI existential risk may still be mistaken and counterproductive.

    YL
    AN
    SL
    3 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    In a new essay, the authors challenge two narratives in AI safety debates: that existential risk is imminent, or that warnings about it are insincere hype or regulatory capture. They argue the warnings could instead be sincere but wrong, and that an existential-risk framing may be counterproductive for AI safety policy. They also argue that we systematically underinvest in resilience against catastrophic and systemic risks.

    Combined views

    13.1K

    3 Sources, first seen 9h ago

    Combined views

    13.1K

    3 Sources, first seen 9h ago

    70 likes
    9h ago
    first seen 9h ago
    70 likes
    9 comments
    35 saves
    24 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Featured Source
    9 comments
    35 saves
    24 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    3 Sources

    @random_walkerNew essay: A big-tent or small-tent AI safety movement? The unstated disagreement that underpins safety debates https://www.normaltech.ai/p/a-big-tent-or-small-tent-ai-safety Two narratives about AI safety have emerged: either AI existential risk is real and imminent, or AI leaders’ and whistleblowers’ claims to that effect are insincere — a “psyop” or hype or a twisted form of regulatory capture. Few have considered the third possibility that x-risk warnings are sincere but simply wrong and counterproductive to AI safety. It’s as if everyone takes for granted that those raising the alarm are geniuses, and the only question is whether they’re the benevolent or the evil kind of genius. We subscribe to neither narrative. In our writing on AI safety, @sayashk and I consistently tried to take the arguments seriously but rebut the many claims we think are unsound while highlighting safety concerns that we think are real. This essay is a continuation of that agenda. Sections - It is true that we systematically underinvest in resilience against catastrophic and systemic risks - The Coxon incident shows how the warped media environment elevates x-risk over more grounded concerns - Why the x-risk framing may be counterproductive for AI safety policy - Conclusion: a big tent or small tent AI safety movement?
    @sethlazarAmen to this conclusion. But in one sense I think the rising tides of anti-AI sentiment may turn either tent into a circling wagon train. Those of us who advocate for safety and governance of AI systems, but who don't want to call an outright halt to AI development, should spend more time justifying that position.
    @ylecunRT @random_walker: New essay: A big-tent or small-tent AI safety movement? The unstated disagreement that underpins safety debates https://…

    3 Sources

    @random_walkerNew essay: A big-tent or small-tent AI safety movement? The unstated disagreement that underpins safety debates https://www.normaltech.ai/p/a-big-tent-or-small-tent-ai-safety Two narratives about AI safety have emerged: either AI existential risk is real and imminent, or AI leaders’ and whistleblowers’ claims to that effect are insincere — a “psyop” or hype or a twisted form of regulatory capture. Few have considered the third possibility that x-risk warnings are sincere but simply wrong and counterproductive to AI safety. It’s as if everyone takes for granted that those raising the alarm are geniuses, and the only question is whether they’re the benevolent or the evil kind of genius. We subscribe to neither narrative. In our writing on AI safety, @sayashk and I consistently tried to take the arguments seriously but rebut the many claims we think are unsound while highlighting safety concerns that we think are real. This essay is a continuation of that agenda. Sections - It is true that we systematically underinvest in resilience against catastrophic and systemic risks - The Coxon incident shows how the warped media environment elevates x-risk over more grounded concerns - Why the x-risk framing may be counterproductive for AI safety policy - Conclusion: a big tent or small tent AI safety movement?
    @sethlazarAmen to this conclusion. But in one sense I think the rising tides of anti-AI sentiment may turn either tent into a circling wagon train. Those of us who advocate for safety and governance of AI systems, but who don't want to call an outright halt to AI development, should spend more time justifying that position.
    @ylecunRT @random_walker: New essay: A big-tent or small-tent AI safety movement? The unstated disagreement that underpins safety debates https://…