You said it would be 'shocking' to have the belief that AIs could become sentient.

To me this sounds like: this belief (that AI sentience is possible) is so implausible that it is shocking to believe it (maybe stupid is too strong, but it implies that people are miscalibrated). Did I misunderstand ?

I don't have any strong beliefs about AI sentience, but that implies that it is not shocking to consider it as a possibility (it is more shocking to be either dismissive or completely confident in it).

▲

vinzenzu 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I meant that the amount of people is shocking, who think AI will become sentient (and malicious).

Maybe I worded it _suboptimally_, heh.

Also thought of prominent people like Musk, Altman, Amodei, etc pp, screaming at the top of their lungs "help me, I am building our doom right now, stop me," and a lot of people believing that. I prefer people like LeCun.

	▲	frotaur 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think the same argument applies to AI takeover. In fact, in terms of existential risks, the scientific consensus skews towards that being a very real and important risk to take into account (on this question, LeCun goes against consensus mostly, and to be honest the arguments I have seen are very simplistic). See e.g.https://calcuja.com/research/ai-risk-survey-2026/ (slop website but the data is true afaik). for 'I think the amount of people is shocking, who think AI will become sentient' -> to me, if you accept that the sentience question is uncertain, you should not be surprised that many people have uncertainty around the question (i.e., that they express that it is a possibility)?