3 ms·

Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.

by olalonde 13d ago

ex-aws-dude 13d ago
You can already look back at similar concerns for early GPT
- metalcrow 13d ago
  Given what's happened since then with propaganda and wide spread scams, I think the original concerns about that have proven quite accurate
- olalonde 13d ago
  Yep: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-generating-algorithm-ai-dangerous.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera...
macleginn 13d ago
"Moral panic" were the exact thoughts that came to my mind when I read this yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-andy-burnham-block-artificial-superintelligence-asi https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-...
vlyan 13d ago
alas, unlike the moral panics of old this one has the capital behind it.
deleted 13d ago
[deleted]
matsemann 13d ago
Well, that's almost a tautology. People claim Y2K or ozone was a panic and that nothing happened. But nothing happened exactly because the force behind the panic also fixed the issues.
- xboxnolifes 13d ago
  What about the panic around dungeons and dragons and violent video games? Did nothing happen because the panic fixed the issue?
  - wiseowise 13d ago
    Do you see any dungeons, or dragons? Exactly.
  - mitchdoogle 12d ago
    Maybe? That's not something binary like the ozone. We have no idea if there would have been more violence had past events been different.
- casey2 13d ago
  That's some way to frame it, not that these companies are causing a problem, but that there is some nebulous "they" that will use the models for 'evil' only if the 'good' companies put in the work. But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning. People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.
- deleted 12d ago
nromiun 13d ago
I don't know how the general public can't see that AI companies are fueling this moral panic to attract more and more VC money to make their companies even more ridiculously valued. Every one of their public announcement is designed to create FOMO for investors.
phendrenad2 13d ago
Prediction: Much like Y2K people will think we were all incredibly backwards and uneducated because we thought a bunch of potato computers were going to break the world.
- andyhedges 13d ago
  With Y2K we fixed the issue, if a bunch of work hadn't had gone into that then there would have been wide scale impact. Critical systems were fixed hence no disaster, it wasn't people fussing about nothing.
  - mr_toad 13d ago
    We also spent a lot of money fixing non-critical systems that would have had next to zero impact if they’d failed. A middle manager not getting their sales report on time is not critical. But at least with Y2K some effort was made in identifying actual problems. We didn’t just stop using computers because we were too scared of them. This latest round of AI panic is horribly vague and the problems are very poorly articulated.
Oarch 13d ago
GPT-2 was called "too dangerous to release".
- aroman 13d ago
  And again the boy will cry out “the wolf is here!” But this time the wolf really will be here, and no one will believe him.
- ianm218 13d ago
  Is there a sense where they were right because GPT-2 directly led to the current situation where you can atleast objectively say that reasonable people are pretty worried about existential risks of AI.
  - righthand 13d ago
    No because that reason wasn’t why they said it.
  - cute_boi 13d ago
    Well you can't attribute it like this. If you go like this, Are you going to blame google and ban research on LLM?
  - paulddraper 13d ago
    By that logic, farming is too dangerous to release.
ActionHank 13d ago
And we will see vibe coding the same way we see lead paint or asbestos.
Valakas_ 12d ago
Famous last words
mitchdoogle 12d ago
I don't view this as hysteria. The fears around superintelligent AI have existed for a decade or more. That's not because AI researchers have a penchant for dreaming up sci-fi scenarios. It's because the concern is based on following a logical conclusion that any entity significantly smarter than humanity cannot be controlled or contained by humanity. That logic will always exist. Even if someone does create an aligned super AI, the logic will still exist and the fear will still be present. Because someone else could build a different ASI. These concerns are just being heard by many people for the first time, so naturally it gets headlines and a lot of conversation. The conversation will die down as all news does, but this is just the beginning of a global effort to regulate and create a framework for developing AI. It's a bit like nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were not a concern for most people until they were developed, tested, and used. But the people working on them were worried. Was it hysteria and moral panic to start worrying about them once people learned that they existed and how destructive they were? I don't think so. Do you look back at people during the cold war and laugh about their hysteria? I don't.

Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.

ex-aws-dude 13d ago

You can already look back at similar concerns for early GPT

metalcrow 13d ago
Given what's happened since then with propaganda and wide spread scams, I think the original concerns about that have proven quite accurate
olalonde 13d ago
Yep: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-generating-algorithm-ai-dangerous.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera...

macleginn 13d ago

"Moral panic" were the exact thoughts that came to my mind when I read this yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-andy-burnham-block-artificial-superintelligence-asi https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-...

vlyan 13d ago

alas, unlike the moral panics of old this one has the capital behind it.

deleted 13d ago

[deleted]

matsemann 13d ago

Well, that's almost a tautology. People claim Y2K or ozone was a panic and that nothing happened. But nothing happened exactly because the force behind the panic also fixed the issues.

xboxnolifes 13d ago
What about the panic around dungeons and dragons and violent video games? Did nothing happen because the panic fixed the issue?
- wiseowise 13d ago
  Do you see any dungeons, or dragons? Exactly.
- mitchdoogle 12d ago
  Maybe? That's not something binary like the ozone. We have no idea if there would have been more violence had past events been different.
casey2 13d ago
That's some way to frame it, not that these companies are causing a problem, but that there is some nebulous "they" that will use the models for 'evil' only if the 'good' companies put in the work. But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning. People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.
deleted 12d ago

nromiun 13d ago

I don't know how the general public can't see that AI companies are fueling this moral panic to attract more and more VC money to make their companies even more ridiculously valued. Every one of their public announcement is designed to create FOMO for investors.

phendrenad2 13d ago

Prediction: Much like Y2K people will think we were all incredibly backwards and uneducated because we thought a bunch of potato computers were going to break the world.

andyhedges 13d ago
With Y2K we fixed the issue, if a bunch of work hadn't had gone into that then there would have been wide scale impact. Critical systems were fixed hence no disaster, it wasn't people fussing about nothing.
- mr_toad 13d ago
  We also spent a lot of money fixing non-critical systems that would have had next to zero impact if they’d failed. A middle manager not getting their sales report on time is not critical. But at least with Y2K some effort was made in identifying actual problems. We didn’t just stop using computers because we were too scared of them. This latest round of AI panic is horribly vague and the problems are very poorly articulated.

Oarch 13d ago

GPT-2 was called "too dangerous to release".

aroman 13d ago
And again the boy will cry out “the wolf is here!” But this time the wolf really will be here, and no one will believe him.
ianm218 13d ago
Is there a sense where they were right because GPT-2 directly led to the current situation where you can atleast objectively say that reasonable people are pretty worried about existential risks of AI.
- righthand 13d ago
  No because that reason wasn’t why they said it.
- cute_boi 13d ago
  Well you can't attribute it like this. If you go like this, Are you going to blame google and ban research on LLM?
- paulddraper 13d ago
  By that logic, farming is too dangerous to release.

ActionHank 13d ago

And we will see vibe coding the same way we see lead paint or asbestos.

Valakas_ 12d ago

Famous last words

mitchdoogle 12d ago

I don't view this as hysteria. The fears around superintelligent AI have existed for a decade or more. That's not because AI researchers have a penchant for dreaming up sci-fi scenarios. It's because the concern is based on following a logical conclusion that any entity significantly smarter than humanity cannot be controlled or contained by humanity. That logic will always exist. Even if someone does create an aligned super AI, the logic will still exist and the fear will still be present. Because someone else could build a different ASI. These concerns are just being heard by many people for the first time, so naturally it gets headlines and a lot of conversation. The conversation will die down as all news does, but this is just the beginning of a global effort to regulate and create a framework for developing AI. It's a bit like nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons were not a concern for most people until they were developed, tested, and used. But the people working on them were worried. Was it hysteria and moral panic to start worrying about them once people learned that they existed and how destructive they were? I don't think so. Do you look back at people during the cold war and laugh about their hysteria? I don't.