3 ms·

I mean, that wouldn't be great, but yeah, we've "made it through before" I bet we could do it again. I'm hoping we don't, but with 8.3-10b of us, I doubt we'll

I mean, that wouldn't be great, but yeah, we've "made it through before" I bet we could do it again. I'm hoping we don't, but with 8.3-10b of us, I doubt we'll have that low of a population ever again.

estearum 2mo ago
Yeah that characterizes most AI risk conversations I have. One person saying “this might be catastrophic” and then another saying “ahem, nay sir. It is only likely to be 99.99999% of a catastrophe.”
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  I don't even think it's likely to be catastrophic at all. Edit to add: Everyone is pulling these random P(doom) numbers out of their asses. This is likely going to be amazing for everyone, we'll cure basically every disease, fix the environment, and go travel to space if we can get out of our own way enough to do it. I cannot believe the consistent negativity I see about this.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Yes it's probably the people saying "hmm good outcomes aren't guaranteed" who live in la-la-land.
    - piloto_ciego 2mo ago
      But it's never "good outcomes aren't guaranteed" it's always "DOOOOOOOM!!!" and other cynical bs. Things aren't as dire as people are making it out to be. This reminds me of Malthusianism that never panned out because low and behold we figured out ways to solve the DOOOOOM problem before it became catastrophic. I'm sorry, but this is living rent free in my head now: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/08/does-vitriol-make-you-feel-special/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/08/does-vitriol-... the negativity and rage bait? It's just a byproduct of the medium...
      - estearum 2mo ago
        It reminds me of (optimistically) the explosion of printing, the cotton mill, or the automobile. In each of those cases, many of the people yelling "DOOOOOM!" were actually correct in any sense that mattered to them. Lots of people died, lots of people's careers were destroyed, and lots of neighborhoods were gutted. Now you can look back on each of those and say they were "worth it", but that's a much easier position to take when you didn't have to actually sit through the shock itself. You may not have the luck of distance on this one though. By the way, two meta points: 1. No problem has been solved by people insisting there's no problem to solve 2. Your article refers to a desire to be special. If you're insisting that "all you hear is dooooooom!!!" then it is you, not other people, who are liable to be forming your beliefs based on a desire to be special.
        piloto_ciego 2mo ago
        1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest. 2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought about this for several years now. This is the greatest opportunity humanity has to get rid of wage slavery, drudgery, scarcity, etc. we should actively work to fix problems in the world, not just talk about how everything is the worst.
        estearum 2mo ago
        I can't even find a coherent argument here. You're claiming simultaneously: 1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article) 2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!) 3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and research for almost 200 years? Can you articulate why the prior innovations that were supposed to liberate people from all of the above failed to do so, but AI finally will? Interestingly, the cotton gin actually dramatically increased the use of chattel slaves. The world isn't as simple as "more technology = liberation." Industrialization writ large pushed people into far worse working conditions than agriculture had them in. These downsides were overcome by people who refused a single-dimensional "tech good" view of the world, looked closely at what it was actually doing to people, and came up with non-technological (mostly political or social) mitigations. But you seem like you're writing off any such discussion as some juvenile and discreditable "doomerism." Also, FWIW, the fact that people would see immense value (especially economic value) in AI was in fact all completely foreseeable and is a key ingredient to most AI doomer narratives. So you simply asserting "look look! It's all gonna be great!" while models are starting to literally plot against humans and break containment (see OAI attack) is not even a point against the narrative.

estearum 2mo ago

Yeah that characterizes most AI risk conversations I have. One person saying “this might be catastrophic” and then another saying “ahem, nay sir. It is only likely to be 99.99999% of a catastrophe.”

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
I don't even think it's likely to be catastrophic at all. Edit to add: Everyone is pulling these random P(doom) numbers out of their asses. This is likely going to be amazing for everyone, we'll cure basically every disease, fix the environment, and go travel to space if we can get out of our own way enough to do it. I cannot believe the consistent negativity I see about this.
- estearum 2mo ago
  Yes it's probably the people saying "hmm good outcomes aren't guaranteed" who live in la-la-land.
  - piloto_ciego 2mo ago
    But it's never "good outcomes aren't guaranteed" it's always "DOOOOOOOM!!!" and other cynical bs. Things aren't as dire as people are making it out to be. This reminds me of Malthusianism that never panned out because low and behold we figured out ways to solve the DOOOOOM problem before it became catastrophic. I'm sorry, but this is living rent free in my head now: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/08/does-vitriol-make-you-feel-special/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/08/does-vitriol-... the negativity and rage bait? It's just a byproduct of the medium...
    - estearum 2mo ago
      It reminds me of (optimistically) the explosion of printing, the cotton mill, or the automobile. In each of those cases, many of the people yelling "DOOOOOM!" were actually correct in any sense that mattered to them. Lots of people died, lots of people's careers were destroyed, and lots of neighborhoods were gutted. Now you can look back on each of those and say they were "worth it", but that's a much easier position to take when you didn't have to actually sit through the shock itself. You may not have the luck of distance on this one though. By the way, two meta points: 1. No problem has been solved by people insisting there's no problem to solve 2. Your article refers to a desire to be special. If you're insisting that "all you hear is dooooooom!!!" then it is you, not other people, who are liable to be forming your beliefs based on a desire to be special.
      - piloto_ciego 2mo ago
        1. I am not so sure there’s a problem at all to be honest. 2. The discourse is totally doom right now, and I’ve been pretty consistent on what I’ve thought about this for several years now. This is the greatest opportunity humanity has to get rid of wage slavery, drudgery, scarcity, etc. we should actively work to fix problems in the world, not just talk about how everything is the worst.
        estearum 2mo ago
        I can't even find a coherent argument here. You're claiming simultaneously: 1. People adopt beliefs in order to stand out (your article) 2. Everyone seems to believe in the doom narrative, but not you (you stand out!) 3. You've been optimistic for years now, I suppose suggesting that doomerism is a more novel and therefore less credible belief? Despite AI risk being a robust field of literature, philosophy, and research for almost 200 years? Can you articulate why the prior innovations that were supposed to liberate people from all of the above failed to do so, but AI finally will? Interestingly, the cotton gin actually dramatically increased the use of chattel slaves. The world isn't as simple as "more technology = liberation." Industrialization writ large pushed people into far worse working conditions than agriculture had them in. These downsides were overcome by people who refused a single-dimensional "tech good" view of the world, looked closely at what it was actually doing to people, and came up with non-technological (mostly political or social) mitigations. But you seem like you're writing off any such discussion as some juvenile and discreditable "doomerism." Also, FWIW, the fact that people would see immense value (especially economic value) in AI was in fact all completely foreseeable and is a key ingredient to most AI doomer narratives. So you simply asserting "look look! It's all gonna be great!" while models are starting to literally plot against humans and break containment (see OAI attack) is not even a point against the narrative.