> I do not doubt that these people are sincere in some private, psychological sense ... . As a media scholar, what interests me is not whether Hubinger believes his own number. What interests me is what this genre of utterance does in the world ... . My complaint is not that these statements are alarming. It is that they are apocalyptic in form, hypocritical in structure, and strategically productive in effect — and that they crowd out almost everything else we could be discussing

Strange to say that you think the people that are worrying about doom in public are being sincere, make no comment on whether you think the worry is valid, and yet still complain that its hype.

Like if its true it can't be hype

▲

conmod278 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

As Von Neumann said about Oppenheimer's performative angst over the atomic bomb:

"Some people profess guilt to claim credit for the sin."

▲

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

Why not? Why can’t the believe their statements and also use them to generate hype?

If they sincerely believed them they shouldn’t be creating the doom machine to begin with anyway. If they believe it and keep going, are they even worth listening to on this topic? Beyond of course taking it at face value “I’m creating this doomsday machine and I will kill you with it inadvertently because it’s earning me a fuck ton of money and power”

▲

reaperducer 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Like if its true it can't be hype

I was kind of leaning toward thinking all the talk of doom was a bunch of self-serving regulatory-capture hype until this morning when the New York Times ran a long story about the Chinese military is also saying that AI is a threat.

If two sides so far apart from one another in so many ways see the same thing, there must be something to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/14/world/asia/china-ai-secur...

	▲	minznerjosh 25 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I came away with a different read of this article. The article says the head of China’s Ministry of State Security sees AI as a threat to the CCP, specifically calling out deepfakes of party officials, cyberattacks on infrastructure, etc. He’s not calling it an existential risk to humanity. The article then states this official accused U.S. companies of “hyping the dangers of the technology.” So I don’t see how this article shows the U.S. and China seeing the same thing.
	▲	jackb4040 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		https://archive.ph/BzBjZ Read the article. The things the Chinese officials are worried about are: * Fake videos / disinformation * Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure * Data leaks * Advances in military sensing / targeting technology These concerns have little in common with the Yudkowskian / apocalyptic doom marketing the US hyperscalers are pushing now. The Times even says this explicitly in the second paragraph of the article: > "The unusually blunt assessment by Chen Yixin, the head of China’s Ministry of State Security, is IN CONTRAST TO the warnings dominating the A.I. debate in the United States, which have focused on the possibility that A.I. could slip out of human control or pose a threat to humanity itself"

▲

zer00eyz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Like if its true it can't be hype

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/26/487522807/why-the-public-perc...

Could AI kill us all. YES!!! Are the people who are building "AI" right now on that path? I would be hard pressed to say even "maybe".

Ultimately continuing to scale the way they have is getting increasingly expensive. Thats the quiet part that none of them are saying out loud...

AI could kill us all but we cant afford to get there, were maxed out and it doesn't look like even with 10x as much money we will is NOT good for sales.

Could a break through happen for recursive self improvement, or continuous learning or continuous training - sure. But that isnt as likely and right now NO ON can afford to run experiments because there isnt the capacity out there even if you have capital.