61–70 of 928 posts
Just wait till self improving AI are focused on the problems of social scoring and political party empowerment / entrenchment. I doubt the focus is OpenAI and Anthropic looking at each other. I suspect they’re racing BRIC.
I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do. People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled, and the upsides are insane.
What evidence, short of an actual apocalypse happening, would invalidate that belief of yours?
There's a scene in the movie "War of the Worlds" by Spielberg where the protagonist's son walks into a war zone because he is entranced by the battle ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7rfWPbEufo ). He is obliterated (along with the rest of the US forces) shortly after. I've always been struck by that scene, because in a lot of ways, if we really are headed towards a superintelligence, I at least want to be there and…
I think he is being over dramatic. In the space of about four years, LLMs progressed from mediocre high school student to Ph.D. graduate in every field. That's impressive, but there is no evidence yet they can outperform or outsmart humans. Their biggest advantage for tasks such as proving theorems or long coding sessions is that they don't get tired.
He resigned and now what? There are thousands willing to do his role, and many labs are competing in that race. His resignation and his statement doesn't do anything but buy him attention which is what all this post about in my opinion.
Take China, for example. Look at any recent ML conference, and see the fraction of articles majority-authored from Chinese universities and labs. Do you think they'll slow things down anytime soon? I don't think so!
It's a global arms race, and we're just spectators.
Related: Sen. Bernie Sanders floats ban on superintelligent AI https://www.axios.com/2026/09/03/bernie-sanders-superintelli...
There's a scene in the movie "War of the Worlds" by Spielberg where the protagonist's son walks into a war zone because he is entranced by the battle ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7rfWPbEufo ). He is obliterated (along with the rest of the US forces) shortly after. I've always been struck by that scene, because in a lot of ways, if we really are headed towards a superintelligence, I at least want to be there and…
Technically, he is not. He returns in the final scene.
The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger. A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?”…
"I think you need to have a personal relationship with Power"
When people today discuss the concept of an all powerful machine-mind, what they are doing is engaging in metaphysics, trying to generate a metaphysics of Power.
The question hounding people, which disguises itself as a science fiction plot about computers is: "What is ultimate, transcendental Power?". What is the ultimate principle of Power.
If you are a weak man, or sufficiently neurotic and full of doubt, that you can only conceive of yourself as such, then power is only something you comprehend from the passive, receptive side. Power is something that happens to you. If you are a fearful man, power is a cruelty and a humiliation. And so it follows, that ultimate power - God - is the ultimate cruelty and the ultimate humiliation. Thus, ai doomerism.
If god wasn't real it would be necessary to invent him, and so they did, and being godless, they built an anti-god - cruel, murderous and tyranical - in their minds.
[…]
https://xcancel.com/robertlasagna1/status/207827473401002846...
I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do. People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled, and the upsides are insane.
What evidence, short of an actual apocalypse happening, would invalidate that belief of yours?
Do you have a more totalizing definition of Apocalypse?