> 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.

▲

ben_w 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm old enough to remember when people dismissed all the doom coming from these companies as "marketing". (A thing many of them have been entirely consistent about since GPT-2, or indeed earlier given the founding documents).

I know a few people around these circles; People like this are quite sincere about the risk, and that they think poorly of their bosses and how risk is being handled.

▲

UncleMeat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"Think poorly" is such an odd response here.

Like, if people were genuinely doing a thing that had such a large probability of killing all humans... they should all be in prison. Heck, vigilanteism would start to look compelling. I do not understand how somebody can really think "well this is likely to doom all of us so we need to get there as fast as possible because we are, without evidence, the most capable people of controlling this thing."

	▲	ben_w 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean much more generally than doom. It's like, Altman's reputation in general is not great, and that includes people who've worked there.

▲

Miner49er 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well obviously that's why they still pursue it. That's a major chunk of the other 90%.

▲

madaxe_again 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it will create enormous prosperity for capital holders. Everyone else - talk to your congressman.

“Vast economic disruption” is not quite the good marketing angle it appears to be.