Here's a wikipedia page on the topic, since it's much too deep a topic to really understand here.

The ad-hominem stuff seems inappropriate here, Gates, Hawking, Musk have identified this as a credible threat, so saying "grow up" isn't really a sufficient argument. Also arguing only 90% of humanity would die isn't really much consolation.

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

▲

wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nothing here plausibly describes a mechanism that is a true "existential risk" - the risk to the existence of humanity.

My argument stands and I don't defer to Gates and Musk and even Hawking - high level hand wavey statements without any plausible description of the mechanism just don't hold up. Famous names should not be automatically assumed to be right - certainly not with Elon Musk.

▲

zug_zug 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well here's the thing, if we ever make an AI so smart that all known measures of intelligence fail to apply to it, I'm pretty sure you (no matter how smart you think you are) simply cannot say what it could achieve and how.

	▲	wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>> I'm pretty sure you (no matter how smart you think you are) simply cannot say what it could achieve and how. Right, so not the slightest basis of fact, just wild speculation about a magical future completely ungrounded in any sort of reality. That's exactly the point I am making. I'm not saying I'm super smart - I am continuing to ask for detail to back up the wild claims being made all over the world by politicians, tech celebrities and others - all hallucination/AI psychosis/fiction. If someone says some stupid thing then I'd like them to please explain that stupid thing - seems like a reasonable request.