4 ms·
Airplanes have pretty bounded damage. Generally you kill at most a few hundred people. Even weaponized a few thousand. This is a risk profile that allows risk t
by gpm 25d ago
Airplanes have pretty bounded damage. Generally you kill at most a few hundred people. Even weaponized a few thousand. This is a risk profile that allows risk taking with near misses and waiting until something goes wrong to fix it (though doing so is rightfully uncomfortable and frequently unethical).
The people worrying about AI risk are worrying about "it goes wrong once and kills billions of people". That's not a risk profile that allows for waiting to see if the risk is real, you have to prevent it before it happens. It's akin to the risk of the cold war going hot, not even "just" a nuclear reactor irradiating half of europe (which has yet to happen, but is a risk with nuclear reactors, chernobyl got uncomfortably close but ultimately was well contained).
- ozozozd 25d agoChernobyl was “well-contained?” Blue dogs and generations of cancer would disagree.
- ls612 25d agoThe story of the safetyists has the convenient property of being unfalsifiable, so they can always claim doom is just around the corner. It’s the secular/EA version of the second coming.
- philipallstar 25d ago> The people worrying about AI risk are worrying about "it goes wrong once and kills billions of people". This is the new "nuclear weapons will ignite the atmosphere".
- ryandrake 25d agoHumanity does not have a great track record for "globally coordinated, collective action to solve/prevent global catastrophe." Look at how Climate Change is going.