I don't consider this a "yes/no" question. It seems quite clear to me that the idea of "AI doom" is neither certain (100% probable) nor impossible (0% probable). The question is where on the continuum is the truth. And I don't know. And I'm pretty sure nobody else does either.

That said, there are plausible scenarios where AI can cause great harm, even if it doesn't extend to "eliminating all humanity". So I don't reject calls for putting more emphasis on AI safety and alignment out of hand. On the other hand, I don't support the idea of implementing a new "Turing Registry"[1] like government agency. I also don't think most of the various proposals out there for regulating AI are enforceable in the slightest.

So where does that leave me? Uncertain. I wish I could take a more concrete stance, but from my perspective, the data needed to do that just isn't there.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer

▲

perfectbeeing 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What is the concrete scenario that is based on reality which results in the percentage increasing above zero?

	▲	mindcrime 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Just take the whole OpenAI / Huggingface thing for a starter. Remember, I only said "cause great harm" not "eliminate all humanity". Within that rubric, I think that incident, and other recent similar incidents, already show the plausibility of AI systems doing unexpected and harmful things. Being automated, I think it's implicit that they can easily scale, so I have no problem making the leap to "cause great harm." Beyond that, we already know AI systems have caused harm in various contexts where they have been used, like facial recognition getting people arrested without justification, loan applications being denied wrongly, jail sentencing being mishandled, and so on. All of these things have actually happened in the real world already. So it doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate a little and see the potential for greater degrees of harm. And consider the standard we're comparing against here: "probability greater than zero". That's not a very high bar, so I feel pretty well justified in holding this position.
	▲	Kinrany 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What does "based on reality" mean to you?
	▲	stevenhuang 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You have poor epistemics if you are still assigning exactly 0% probability given developments of late.