If you actually believe that your invention will lead to the extinction of humanity, you would be acting very very differently. Namely, you would not be inventing the thing that you think is going to kill all of humanity, and probably you would be doing everything in your power to prevent it from being invented, up to and including sabotage of the company that YOU work for, which is currently trying to invent that thing. And yet, here's Fable 6, more capable than ever before, oh BTW we are IPOing, oh, BTW, I have stock options...

▲

mrob an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Sabotaging your own company is not enough. You'd have to sabotage every other AI lab too. If you assume that's impossible, attempting to be the first to produce ASI is a rational alternative, even if you think it will most likely kill you. At least that way you have some control over the P(doom).

▲

bigstrat2003 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> If you assume that's impossible, attempting to be the first to produce ASI is a rational alternative, even if you think it will most likely kill you.

That is completely irrational.

	▲	mrob 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		1% chance of survival beats 0%.

▲

goatlover 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This sounds like a rationalization for gambling with everyone's lives, assuming they really believe such a thing.

	▲	mrob 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What's the alternative? There's no realistic way to globally coordinate and enforce a ban. A direct action campaign against AI labs would only motivate increased security until sabotage becomes impossible. Starting a nuclear war would probably be enough to stop dangerous AI research, and that's only likely to kill about 50% of humans instead 100%, so it's a great improvement, but how is an individual supposed to start a nuclear war? Of course it would be better if everybody stopped, but it's a prisoner's dilemma scenario with no possibility of future rounds, so the rational play is to defect.

▲

40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

aaroninsf an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is not an argument, it's an unfounded claim based on a straw argument.

The threat is distributed; the problem is systemic. Social herd behavior is very real, and it's a probability space, not a certainty.

Similar case: climate change is without any question causing millions of deaths per year and may well kill billions, not to mention destroying ecosystems, and how may people do you know who have given up eating beef or flying...?

▲

mlsu an hour ago | parent [-]

You're right. That's why I'm doing my best to give the oil companies more power and influence. They are, after all, in the best position to stop climate change!

	▲	frabcus an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You joke, but alas... "Fossil fuel lobbyists flood COP30 climate talks in Brazil, with largest ever attendance share" https://kickbigpollutersout.org/Release-Kick-Out-The-Suits-C...