If I work at Anthropic and say there’s a 0% chance AI could kill all humans is BBC going to publish that as well? After all I am an “Anthropic researcher”, and my views should hold the same weight as this one.

Or are only the most sensationalist ones worth amplifying?

▲

Dlemlo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the view is fair. We have never seen something like this before, we throw the most money we ever had against it in a time were we solved all the other problems:

Internet today allows immediadte communication across the planet (it was a lot slower 25 years ago), the supplychain is massive and fast (we can build a new phone/item in a very short period of time and ship it in massive numbers around the globe).

▲

Lutger 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> win a time were we solved all the other problems

You don't mean this literally right? We still have hunger, diseases, slavery, poverty, crime, war, climate change, pollution, microplastics, etc. For me it feels like we are very far away from solving these problems.

	▲	Dlemlo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I meant it only for things which speedup innovation / progress in a particular technology. Like take physical AI / Robotics: 25 years ago you would need to fly to wereever your manufacturing hub was, today you just call.

▲

sebzim4500 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He is in line with the median AI researcher in this 2022 survey: https://wiki.aiimpacts.org/doku.php?id=ai_timelines:predicti...

▲

Eezee 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

0% is the expected answer, because otherwise why wouldn't you be doing everything you could to stop this?

	▲	dogma1138 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The chance that biomedical and viral research could also kill all humans is greater than 0%. Should we stop doing that also?
	▲	sebzim4500 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How do you know he isn't? At least propose what you think he should do instead.