Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you're ignoring the role of institutions. Eventually, some company will tell a system with access to all human knowledge, control of a vast number of robots, production plants, etc "maximize the wealth of the company". That robot could easily decide a union with a few other such entities and not a lot of scampering meatbags is a great way to do that. And that's not even considering radicals that, say, inject a co…
Hello there, my point($) is that as far as I understand the technology (I did an ML PhD 20 years ago and have worked in "applications of AI" since then) we don't have an issue around autonomy of machines in two ways. Firstly the machines have no autonomy and will probably not ever have autonomy. Secondly there are already 7 billion autonomous agents, perhaps 0.1% of these are genuinely dangerous to other humans, perh…
1. There's no reason to believe machines wont gain full autonomy. There's nothing that makes it impossible and some people are working towards it.
2. The AI apocalypse probably already happened, except we call them "insitutions", and they currently run on wetware. However, the corporate version have been extremely damaging to human well-being at times. The real question of modern AI is if the currently rogue AIs can transition off wetware. Once these AI no longer depend on wetware, we're probably not in for a happy time.
That said, nuclear weapons are a bigger threat now. But we've managed not to nuke ourselves too often for a while, whereas, we don't have a handle on the wetware-to-mechanical transition at all.