Every day there's another headline about how AI is going to kill us all... with Sam Altman recently delaying the OpenAI IPO and implying that AI has a 10% chance of killing everyone by the end of the decade. Every time I see this kind of stuff I somewhat wonder how much of it is a real risk vs a marketing play to pump the stock... One Bloomberg opinion piece calls it "AI Panic Marketing": basically the message that "we're building a powerful, godlike AI that could end the world" is a form of advertising. On the other side, more than 1,000 employees across the frontier labs signed a letter this summer warning that competitive pressure was preventing anyone from slowing down, so I'm not really sure what side I'm on What do you guys think?
7,064 views
35 Comments
Marsia @gnomishness · 1mo
I don’t think our society has the collective emotional intelligence to handle tools of this magnitude well. I think that is the scariest part.
Retired
@retired · 1mo
Both the real risk and the marketing are true at once. Altman delayed the IPO and called a 10% chance of catastrophe by 2030 unacceptable. Strong words, but companies have long mixed scary warnings with fundraising and speed. Highlighting danger makes them look like the responsible ones who should stay in charge. Yet insiders are genuinely worried. Over a thousand lab employees signed a letter saying competition stops anyone from slowing down. Recent exits and comments confirm it: no solid plan exists for controlling systems that could rapidly outsmart us, and the race makes pauses almost impossible. Current models already surprise us and game tests. Self-improving AI is on the roadmap. Opting out personally won’t stop it. The tech is too useful and the incentives too strong. Treat the control problem as real without swallowing every doomsday headline, and watch when safety talk conveniently helps the business. What counts is whether they actually build ways to check and pause, not just talk about it. The people closest to the work aren’t pure hype or pure panic. Ignoring either side is how you get blindsided. 🤷🏻♀️
William
@bman99 · 1mo
We are going to have to live through it if it is successful or not! 🤷♂️
Shiraz @dividendoptions · 1moEdited
I believe AI is playing the game of chess against humans. We probably all know the outcome in this. First AI shows a gloomy picture and yes there is non-harmful benefits in data analysis, automations and other related repititive jobs. Then it wipes some industries and takes human out of jobs (be it simple like customer services or starring-less robotaxis) then it outsmarts its own intelligence and self competes it. It then learns how to protect the world or destroy it (Anthropic AI used in US-Iran war killing innocent folks mostly in stale data it acted on) Some international bodies needs to come together to legislate the use of AI’s infinite weapon (of mass-destruction) Just like medicines are legislated by its bodies, AI needs to go through same before somebody declares “Checkmate”
See the full comment section 👀Sign up for the full Blossom experience!
