> This "just so" claim has always struck me as quite a reach. Humans are manipulable, yes, especially by (perceived) group pressure, but there are still limits.

> This "just so" claim has always struck me as quite a reach. Humans are manipulable, yes, especially by (perceived) group pressure, but there are still limits. You could reimagine it as "convince most people to do anything, including killing people who are unconvinced" if you prefer. > There's a few links in the article - which person are you referring to? Sorry, this link, which is attached to "bomb" in the article: https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-not-enough/ https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no... > Being the most prominent voice calling something unsafe is not an inherently valuable qualification. That's true. But the article does something odd instead of making that critique -- it presents bombing GPU data centers as a reductio ad absurdum, suggesting if you really believed in AI risk then you would have to be willing to consider doing that. The people who really believe in AI risk already are willing to consider it, though.