We have no reason to believe a word they say. We know they're incentivized to lie about "dangers" and act alarmist, Anthropic has been doing it for years now. Aside from that, just because you can burn down a village with fire doesn't mean fire is the devil. Maybe they should consider acting responsibly.

I do not trust the leadership of any of these companies.

That said:

> We know they're incentivized to lie about "dangers" and act alarmist,

Name literally even one other business or sector which does this, at all levels from top to bottom, including people who resign from the companies, and also Nobel prize winners, and also independent researchers, and also many world leaders.

Closest I can think of is this specific weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial_(weapon)

> Aside from that, just because you can burn down a village with fire doesn't mean fire is the devil. Maybe they should consider acting responsibly.

Right now, we don't have any idea what "acting responsibly" looks like. This is not like normal software where there is a specific instruction set that compiles.

Even if it was, in software we normally only spotting incidents after they happen, "software engineers" being one of the few categories "engineers" who don't come with a civil liability responsibilities.

AI specifically is worse even than software, because in addition to all the software "engineering" nonsense, with AI we have plenty of people like you who dismiss the possibility that they could be harmful until the harm happens and only then does it become "obvious" that it was going to happen

The developers say "please regulate us", people call it "regulatory capture".

The developers say "we all want to slow down but are afraid to be the first to do so", people call them liars.

The agents, during a test run, write down that hacking is bad and yet still hack, people say it's "a stunt" or "operating as designed" rather than recognising it as a bug, like all the other times big co.'s have had bugs with big impacts on 3rd parties.