Anthropic researcher says more than 10% chance AI "could kill all humans"

AustinDev

If they actually believed this they'd be buying a truckload of fertilizer and diving it to the nearest chip fab. I don't buy it.

benenrjdnz

Probably for the best. Humanity had a good run, but this is no longer our civilization. Your best course of action is to start ripping the copper out of the walls.

seydor

Including them?

ar_lan

I am absolutely appalled that this type of marketing is allowed. It is so disingenuous.

hunterpayne

This is the most perverse marketing campaign in history. "Our product might wipe out all of human civilization". It is said that heavily regulated industries earn that regulation. Seems like the LLM folks really want that regulation.

dist-epoch

It's all marketing. Don't fall for it, it's the age old strategy "our product is extremely dangerous, so fear us". Like the tobacco companies saying all the time "our cigarettes are so dangerous, they cause cancer". Or like Purdue Pharma saying "do not use fentanyl, it's so dangerous, it kills thousands of people every year". They try to generate fear in their products, to shock investors into buying their stock.

VagabundoP

If it does it will be at the hands of another human. AI to me is like the Nuclear race again. Super powers will be using it as a super weapon. I don't think AGI will wipe us out by itself.

mstank

I’ve yet to see a rational argument for how we go from super intelligent LLMs to human extinction or extermination. I understand that some smart people are worried about it. I just haven’t come across a believable or understandable argument.

nullbio

RCH (Regulatory Capture Hysteria).

dwedge

I'm well past the point of opening clickbait from anthropic or openai. Yeah we get it everyone else should be regulated

jeansilga

Before or after they capture the 30 trillions dollar market they say they are after?

sssilver

I'd love to see the numbers and the arithmetic that compute down to "more than 10%"

romanows

I'd like to know how these people arrive at their estimates. Why 10% and not 1% or 50%?

austin-cheney

> Superintelligence is the still-theoretical notion of an AI agent that is smarter than even the sharpest human minds. When are we supposed to see this materialize?

bayarearefugee

> AI "could kill all humans" After all the decades of work we've put into orchestrating our own demise through climate change, here comes AI to steal another human job.

rolandr

The real source of concern perhaps is the 90% chance AI is used to kill 90% of humans. Just crash the global economy and supply chains and see how quickly major metro areas run out of food and gas. And as someone else pointed out, it will almost certainly be at the intentional direction of a human or humans, not the paper clip maximizer.

yogthos

Just more scaremarketing at work here.

bwfan123

> 10% chance AI "could kill all humans" Why not 10% chance that it will create enormous prosperity for all ? This is why the average person is increasing pissed at AI in general. That it gets associated with negativity.

viccis

Why a 10% chance instead of 11% or 9%?

2uahgf

Next week's ad: "With OpenAI[tm] Astra[tm], there is a 20% change that it could kill all humans!" Next week's Senate: "We cannot afford to lose the 'kill all humans' race to Russia and China!" Next't weeks AISI: "We continue to plan the monitoring of emergent issues that could lead to less than optimal conditions for humanity and will form a committee to evaluate all ramifications."