3 ms·
Experts regularly put the annual risk of nuclear exchange at about 2-5% per annum. So over a decade or longer, that risk is significantly above 10%. Those s
by bryanlarsen 28d ago
Experts regularly put the annual risk of nuclear exchange at about 2-5% per annum. So over a decade or longer, that risk is significantly above 10%. Those same odds also mean that we should have had additional nuclear exchanges in the 80 years that nuclear weapons have existed. And that also feels true -- history contains several really close calls which we were darn lucky to escape.
On the other hand, "nuclear exchange" does not necessarily mean all humans die or that civilization collapses. Even a limited exchange will be pretty awful, but even a widespread exchange doesn't necessarily mean the end of civilization.
So in my opinion, a nuclear exchange is much more likely than an AI apocalypse, but an AI is more likely to kill all humans.
- runarberg 28d agoAI is not likely to kill all humans. This is just fantasy or science fiction which for some reason (mass hysteria; or more likely malicious marketing campaign by evil AI companies) a lot of HN users seem to believe is real. It is not real. AI does not have the agency nor the capabilities to kill all humans, nor is there any way for any technologically possible AI (no matter how powerful) to possess the agency nor the capabilities.
- bryanlarsen 28d ago10% chance means "not likely", and that's the highest percentage likelihood I've seen from anybody.
- runarberg 28d agoThis 10% chance should be replaced with “a number some people made up” As it stands the chances of AI killing every human is exactly 0%. There is no scenario which exist in the realm of all possibilities where AI even comes close to killing all humans.
- deleted 28d ago[deleted]