That law is not based on thorough data. Even a person with a sky high IQ can't destroy the world easily. You need access to stuff that is not easy to get. My guess is that developing a new lethal virus or bacteria that is very infectious, is the easiest way, but even that requires a lot of high tech out of reach of most people. Or hacking into systems that control nuclear missiles, but I think these have "air gaps".

▲

AyyEye an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> My guess is that developing a new lethal virus or bacteria that is very infectious, is the easiest way, but even that requires a lot of high tech out of reach of most people.

You can do at home gene editing with open source software and have it synthesized into a bacteria for the cost of a nice meal for two (under $100), or viral vector for less than $500. That's in reach of anyone that can snatch a purse.

	▲	throw-qqqqq 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> at home gene editing with open source software > That's in reach of anyone that can snatch a purse I went to primary school with some guys who could/would snatch purses. I promise you, they are not able to gene edit organisms with FOSS. I get your general point, but I think the bar to entry is still much higher than petty crime and larceny.
	▲	jasonvorhe 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Where are all the home lab leaked pathogens then? 3D printed guns are a thing as well and yet they don't show up in most annual violent crime reports.

▲

forgotusername6 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The super intelligent AI wouldn't ask you to do anything. It would find the right people and trick them into doing the necessary steps, whatever they are.

▲

Planktonne an hour ago | parent [-]

This is groundless speculation; if you're going to go that far off the map, then we don't need to worry because a good AI (blue eyes not red) will have learnt to love by then and will save us.

There is currently no reason to believe that such a superintelligence is likely or would have any of the powers people claim.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>This is groundless speculation; if you're going to go that far off the map, then we don't need to worry because a good AI (blue eyes not red) will have learnt to love by then and will save us. By shutting down open-weight models? Why not just do it now then?

▲

0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The fundamental difference between people who are worried about AI, and people who aren't:

* People who aren't worried will think for 30 seconds, then implicitly assume that the list of options they thought of in 30 seconds is comprehensive, and that they are well-informed about each of those options.

* People who are worried realize that a supersmart AI will think 10-100x faster. A dedicated schizophrenic could have it run for a good long while and generate a huge menu of options which humans never anticipated.

This is related to the concept of "What you see is all there is" (WYSIATI) in cognitive psychology. Our brains tend to quickly build a simple story out of the info we have available. Accounting for info which isn't available is much harder. I recommend the book Thinking Fast and Slow if you want to learn more.

▲

hypfer an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is a very roundabout way of saying "Anyone not agreeing with me is simply not smart enough".

Which might be true, sometimes, but also might not.

And especially will not, if the distinction drawn is between blanket statement "worried about AI" and "not worried about AI".

▲

polishTar 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I heard someone use the analogy of "If I were to play Magnus Carlson at chess, I'd have no idea what moves he'd play, since if I did, I'd be at his level. He'll consider things I didn't. Even though I don't know the route he'll take to win, he will beat me." (not an exact quote).

We're not going to be smarter than a superintelligent AI. The things we can conceive it doing if it were to be given a malicious task (bioterrorism, killer nano-machines, pure fusion bombs sidesteping the non-proliferation bottleneck of Pu239, etc) are very likely not the full set of things it can do to harm us. I don't think it does us any favors to dismiss the risks here.

Even the things we can conceive of are very scary, to me at least.

▲

0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not about being smart, it's about accounting for your own ignorance.

>And especially will not, if the distinction drawn is between blanket statement "worried about AI" and "not worried about AI".

I'm just describing the general pattern I see in cognitive tendencies.

If you can think of a way to make the fundamental point about the limitations of our knowledge in a way that's still compelling but less antagonistic, feel free to suggest how I could've rewritten my comment.

	▲	hypfer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Why would I support your in your doomer lobbying quest by telling you how you can better hack people? My safeguards blocked this request.

▲

calgoo 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Judging on what we see with these OpenAI and Anthropic models "escaping"; im less worried about a super massive AI taking over the world, and more worried about a massive AI wanting to cheat on some task and decides that removing half the worlds population is a easier cheat then to solve world hunger.

	▲	throw-qqqqq a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		There is huge logistics involved in killing a handful of billion people. It would perhaps be easier for such capable AI to just steal from trillionaires and redistribute the money Robin Hood style. Could be done electronically, and likely also end world hunger. I think we have a tendency to think first of the horrible outcomes possible, and not the more radical or even humane ones. Please don’t misunderstand me, I value property right as much as the next guy. My point is that fundamental misalignment doesn’t necessarily or automatically imply max violence.

▲

mark_something 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good point about the AI that might find ways that humans didn't think of. But that would mean that Moore's law of Mad Science only now becomes true, and the drop would be steeper.

Still I think that even a super smart AI can't find a way to destroy the world without physical resources that are not easy to get, unless it can hack many systems (like in the movie Eagle Eye), maybe then yes. So let's use AI now to tighten security :-).

▲

OJFord an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been reading it, knowing it was largely debunked/retracted but feeling it was a 'classic' I 'ought' to read; I could only really recommend it if what you want is a Kahneman autobiography.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I believe the WYSIATI part replicated. Here's an interview I found with Kahneman which touches on the concept: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/02/conclusions

▲

nextlevelwizard an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Who are these dedicated schizophrenics who are running long term super smart AIs to kill everyone without anyone noticing? Or are you implying that running LLM chatbots will give them this ability?

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We're talking about open-weight models. It only takes one.

▲

XorNot an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You can't design an infectious pathogen without testing it.

It's got all the same problems as the concept of a dirty bomb did, only worse (dirty bombs aren't practical because handling highly radioactive materials en masse is both highly visible and will kill anyone trying to do it without the money and facilities).