31–39 of 39 posts
My bet is that humans will kill humans faster than AI. AI enables not only good actors, but also bad actors: Russians, Iranians, Houthis, other terrorist groups - they all now effectively use AI to speed-up development of their weapons as well as hybrid warfare.
My bet is that humans will kill humans faster than AI. AI enables not only good actors, but also bad actors: Russians, Iranians, Houthis, other terrorist groups - they all now effectively use AI to speed-up development of their weapons as well as hybrid warfare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mentioned by another commenter, the real danger is that these tools act as amplifiers and enablers for human agents that want to do really bad things. Whereas some crazy group that wants to destroy X for some reason, but had no ability to do so before, with the help of advanced AI tools might have a chance. The other is the human deploying these things don't even need to be bad (evil) actors. They can just be real…
This is the same description as any other technology including fire.
So, hell yes. Let's treat AI with the same degree of care we treat fire.
My bet is that humans will kill humans faster than AI. AI enables not only good actors, but also bad actors: Russians, Iranians, Houthis, other terrorist groups - they all now effectively use AI to speed-up development of their weapons as well as hybrid warfare.
100% agree. All of these stories seem off the mark...with the increased ability to create agentic hacking swarms, mass surveillance, killer AI drones, virus engineering, etc. it seems to me that we should all be most concerned with humans, enabled by AI, destroying everything. AI is the least of our concerns.
It amazes me how pieces like this never stop to question whether these beliefs are genuine. If I'm one of these researchers who's leaving their position, "I am so smart that I can make something world endingly dangerous, but also so principled that I'm willing to walk away from it" is a pretty slick bit of self promotion. Even if I was making a career change for unrelated reasons, that's absolutely the story I'd be t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% agree. All of these stories seem off the mark...with the increased ability to create agentic hacking swarms, mass surveillance, killer AI drones, virus engineering, etc. it seems to me that we should all be most concerned with humans, enabled by AI, destroying everything. AI is the least of our concerns.
AIs don't kill people but people with AIs kill people...
Russia, for example, is already using AI targeting (Ukraine too but "with callback", ie. AI targeting asks permission to the commander and no permission? No targeting), China and Turkey are delivering AI targeting solutions to ... essentially anyone (the old Syrian government and Azerbeijan were both provided with them, and Azerbeijan probably used them against Armenian civilians in the blockade of Nagorno-Karabagh). Turkey provided them to Ukraine earlier in the war, then Russia flew a number of planes very close to Turkish borders and now they don't anymore.
The son-in-law of Turkey's prime minister, Özdemir Bayraktar, is among selling them.
As for diplomacy, the UN has already decided they will do nothing about it. And that means, btw, that the ICC will do nothing either.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/09/1168288
https://www.azernews.az/region/263412.html (Iran proudly declares they're doing this)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2024/02/22/azerbaijan...
So you want this? Excellent! So what are you going to do? Keep in mind that serious amounts of violence will be required to accomplish your ban on AI drones, because the main strength of AI drones used to be that only side has them, but that time is passed. Turkey has no doubt built up their production, Russia obviously has (and is producing 100+ per day), and China, well we don't really know, but it's China, so ...
When two sides have them (like in Ukraine), it seems to be a numbers game. So you want to make any headway, you'll have to produce large amounts of AI targeting drones to accomplish this.
It amazes me how pieces like this never stop to question whether these beliefs are genuine. If I'm one of these researchers who's leaving their position, "I am so smart that I can make something world endingly dangerous, but also so principled that I'm willing to walk away from it" is a pretty slick bit of self promotion. Even if I was making a career change for unrelated reasons, that's absolutely the story I'd be t…
It amazes me how pieces like this never stop to question whether these beliefs are genuine. If I'm one of these researchers who's leaving their position, "I am so smart that I can make something world endingly dangerous, but also so principled that I'm willing to walk away from it" is a pretty slick bit of self promotion. Even if I was making a career change for unrelated reasons, that's absolutely the story I'd be t…
If researchers say AI is dangerous but keep their position, well they're obviously hyping up their boss and doing it for the money, otherwise they'd quit. If they say AI is dangerous and quit, they're self-promoting.
I have no idea what these researchers could do, if they were genuine, that you would accept as even weak evidence that they believed what they say.
It may be the case that he was too idealistic, but those Three Laws seem foundational to discussion of what we do with AI.