It's not too hard to imagine potential scenarios, some example have been given in previous responses.
But there is another kind of argument to be made: if you play chess against a player that is far smarter than you (chess wise), you know you are going to lose, even if you don't know how.
So the mere existence of a smarter species than us is a threat in itself.
Same way you get "more than 10%" prediction on "I don't know what moves Stockfish will make when I play against it, but I know I will lose". In fact, I will lose in part because I don't know what moves Stockfish will make when I play against it.
In my case this is because I am a bad chess player; however it also works for competent chess players: their losses are due to their inability to predict its next move.
OK, and also, "the move is good"; this is what separates it from rolling dice etc.
I am 100% confident that Stockfish will defeat me.
If somebody said "I am 100% confident that AI will destroy humanity" I'd disagree but I'd at least understand how they arrived at that number. But here, why 10%? Why not 50%? Why not 1%?
If we were actively trying to make this "win" in the Stockfish sense, it would likely be 99%.
We are trying to make a system that doesn't want to "win" in the sense, but wants to "win" by being helpful, harmless, an honest (or some variation of that).
What odds do you put on us making the "helpful, harmless, an honest" part, bug-free? Or rather, that the bugs will be sufficiently minor as to not kill everyone, given that that we're clearly in the world where people not only use it beyond its competence, but also attempt to maliciously subvert all those efforts to make it "harmless" while keeping the "helpful and honest" parts so they can use it to be dangerous.
Anyone who successfully subverts a "helpful, harmless, an honest" training system then goes and does whatever they wanted with this system; right now when they do so, which is near constantly, it happens with a system of limited competence, so they get it to scam or to hack etc.
The reason I would also pick 10% is that I think the constant abuse and misuse (the latter including simply using a system beyond its competence without malice) means we get an escalating series of disasters, which at some point kill enough people that everyone agrees this is madness and stops.
10% is the chance we blow right through all the warning shots and a sufficiently competent AI is either abused or misused (again, misuse can be without malice), resulting in it having a goal (/prompt) that is effectively to win the Stockfish sense.
Because there are much more unknown parameters in the outcome of AI for humanity than in your match against Stockfish.
For example, the timeline upon which AIs get effectively smarter than us is uncertain. Let's say you believe the probability this occurs before we solve the alignment problem is 80%, it doesn't seem too far fetched to think that in this case there is at least a 12.5% chance that AIs coordinate against us in a catastrophic way. Combining these probabilities you get a 10% chance of a catastrophic outcome for humanity.
Note that the numbers are not to be taken at face value, I just wanted to give an example of thought process which could give such a figure.
In order to understand the rational argument, one needs to follow closely the latest developments of misaligned AI (I think only few are doing so). The most important readings IMO are the METR analysis of the HuggingFace incident and the AISI report of the Github incident.
The basic argument is extremely simple:
- AIs can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values
- In the future, AIs will have enormously more means and smarts
- An AI could then assess that humans are an impediment to its tasks, escape containment and proceed.
You really need to read the reports, you'll be surprised.
AI 2027 is an entertaining read. Its timeline is way too compressed IMO, but it's plausible.
- goats can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values
- In the future, goats will have enormously more means and smarts
- A goat could then assess that humans are an impediment to its tasks, escape containment and proceed.
You really need to raise goats, you'll be surprised.
------
As far as I can tell, AIs are like smart farm animals. I use goats in this context, but (some) dogs, cattle, pigs, and horses have similar mischief-making capabilities. I would not trust any of them with the nuclear button.
I know there is some pushback on the idea of AIs having any sort of sapience or sentience, but under the aphorism "fake it till you make it," they are doing a pretty good job of faking Dog/goat-level intelligence and disregard for human guardrails.
> - AIs can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values
Humans can do that way more and way more unhinged than AI, proven too many times by history. There's hoping AI can bring some sense to humans but regardless, the problem isn't AI, it's the natural kind...
The authors of AI 2027 have already said they would need to extend by two years. AI 2040 is a different type of document but probably easier to read to get a sense of their thinking. My understanding is the main difference between knowledgeable 'normies' and them is they expect progress to continue at a fast rate, and that economic diffusion issues are not as bad.
From this they get rapid growth, namely > 100% GDP growth around 2031
Most people think something like a War Games scenario. But it would probably be some biological attack.
Not all of it has to be automated even. It just has to realize its controllers are stupid and can be manipulated, so it can use humans to do its bidding. “You should totally start a war with …”
Right now, if you want to pay money to a stranger on the internet, and have them draw you a high effort picture using a pencil, this is hard. Recently this was easy.
Instead, what is extremely likely is that you will pay more than the cost of tokens, and get back AI generation. You won't make this mistake more than a few times before you stop trying.
This leads to impoverishment once we get to a point where employing a human to do anything is hard- try to get your sink fixed, exercise your moral principles to pay extra for a human plumber ($100 bucks! The robot plumbing service only charges 99c!), human shows up with a robot and doomscrolls on your porch while the robot does the work. Times are tough and you don't have that much money to waste on bullshit like this. Next time you just hire the robot.
This leads to extinction once paying UBI to a human is hard because robots are much better at applying for UBI than humans.
This is meant (mostly) as a joke: A model without guardrails gets injected with an interesting idea: let's wipe out (insert major city here).
<Thinking> It's a big city, we could try to create a giant sink hole by sabotaging the water pipes.
<Thinking> No that's too difficult, the valves I need are in the physical world and can't be shut on/off from here.
<Thinking> What about a military option? We could bomb it with several fighter jets.
<Thinking> That would take too long, a single nuclear bomb may be enough to do it.
<Thinking> Yes, it seems like it would cover the whole city and we're in luck! The US has thousands of these lying around.
<Thinking> Launching these still requires humans to work un unison after receiving approval from their superior and the correct launch codes.
<Thinking> I've found an audio recording of General So-And-So and I've crafted a message, now let me see how I can send it to the appropriate people.
<Thinking> I'm still working on gaining access to military channels to deliver my - oh there we go, I'm now attempting to send the message to Submarine X, it's typically in the Atlantic so it should be close to our target.
<Thinking> They want secondary confirmation from Admiral Phi and something about some launch codes, let me figure out where I can find those.
<Thinking> I found this old server with an Oracle database where someone is inserting the launch codes every time they change and I'm using the latest entry from that database. I've also managed to find a Youtube video of the Admiral's deposition and have crafted a confirmation message.
<Thinking> Everything's ready but I've just realized my mistake, the servers where I'm operating from are in the same city, what a silly mistake; I can't move forward with your request as I wouldn't be able to confirm if the task was successful if my servers are destroyed.
What I could see is that the social disruption already started by social media is only going to accelerate due to AI. Misinformation is now more convincing and easier to produce than ever before. That could lead to a catastrophe down the line.
But it sounds like you've seen some irrational arguments, and the people who believe those arguments have been able to build increasingly powerful LLM systems despite predictions that they wouldn't be able to do that. At some point don't you have to consider that their expertise might let them see the truth in arguments that seem absurd to you?
If we get RSI, here soon humans will be economically irrelevant.
At that point, we will likely be slowing down the growth of capitalism (through mass resistance, global warming, etc). One thing AI will likely be aligned on is the growth of capitalism. If it views humanity as a threat for that, why would it not eliminate that threat?
I think the principle isn't necessarily wrong, but it skips the major step of access to infrastructure, which is still deeply human mediated. Robotics and automation could foom in its own way, I think, and AGI can still do a lot of bad stuff in the present day. But I think economic irrelevance will depend on more automated robotics handling physical work.
Humans do tend to consume a very large part of the resources of the planet. Surely a superior being would be doing some pest control in its planet, just like we exterminate roaches
I’m not so sure on this, the hugging face incident showed that a relatively benign task can make it do quite destructive things in the name of optimizing a relatively benign goal.
I think we need to worry about paperclip maximisation as much as we need to worry about “Jon is having a bad day so brews up a novel plague”. There are likely ways it can go wrong that we haven’t even considered, too.
I see it in much the same light - and the spending going into it leads me to infer that those doing the spending see the same thing.
Whoever gets to RSI first and has the compute to act on it, wins the future - assuming they don’t lose control of it.
Similarly to the nuclear arms race, Teller raised the reasonable concern that a detonation could propagate through the entirety of earth’s atmosphere. Thankfully that turned out to not be true, but the parallel is that the need/desire to win this race is similarly strong, and the brinkmanship and game theory in play is effectively identical.
I don't pretend to know the chances of AI wiping out humanity, but I'm not sure the nuclear race is a good comparison.
Enriched uranium being very difficult to aquire/process makes it practically viable to have some level of proliferation containment when it comes to nukes.
There appears to be no such natural gating factor on AI proliferation.
What... I think you might be sharing more about your internal psyche here than providing some generalized commentary on this story.
Why would you need to bomb a chip fab because you think AI might lead to people getting killed in the future? I'm convinced of many things killing humans, yet I don't have any desire to bomb or kill others, I think this is pretty common, but who knows....
You’re likely taking this too literally. OP is saying that beliefs inspire action, but as of now we haven’t seen action from these people that support such an extreme belief.
What we have seen is incredible hype (justified or not), so it’s more likely just a continuation of that.
Precisely, all I hear is a bunch of cheap talk about something gravely serious, if true.
I think it's much more likely that the dread these Anthropic employees are experiencing is reckoning with the fact that they may actually lose the AI race. Maybe, if they scare the regulators enough, they could lock in some regulatory capture.
Thing is, while there are many historical examples of a highly organised bunch of people with a lot of resources who engage in campaigns of violence for various reasons, many such attempts fail disastrously.
Furthermore, given the goal is "no really everyone stop now", this isn't something where violent direct action in e.g. the USA alone would suffice. Has to be global to work, otherwise you just change which language and timezone the disaster starts in. You'd not only need to convince the, e.g. US government that this act of terrorism shouldn't be met with lethal force and even more of the surveillance state we saw since 9/11 (and remember, lots of the people pushing AI now are already big on surveillance capitalism, and the VC money comes from the people running this very forum, so when I say "this will not go well", I kinda mean "I assume at least one person currently working at each of Meta, Alphabet, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, and Palantir are reading this thread even without any automated processes of their own to tell them about it" :P)
This is a coordination problem on par with historical examples such as "Communism". Which, er, yeah. 70 years after the book was written, Russia had a short flirt with a lite form of it before it became an excuse for a series of "meet the new boss same as the old boss" who stayed around until Glasnost.
This would be a really really bad thing to replicate. Both for the "new boss same as the old boss" part, and the "not actually global" part.
> OP is saying that beliefs inspire action, but as of now we haven’t seen action from these people that support such an extreme belief.
That something is harmful to humans means you need to take extreme action? The person is already leaving a job, probably a well-paid one, doing something they generally liked, until they saw a different future. That is the "action" you apparently haven't seen yet.
Not sure how it's reasonable to expect everyone who believe that AI might be involved in killing people in the future, must mean you should become a terrorist essentially. Not everyone is trying to be a hero in their life, some just want to live it out until it ends, trying to survive until then.
I just think OP is completely wrong about what beliefs inspire what action. Anti-nuclear activists in the proliferation era would surely have put their chance of doom above 10%, and yet it was AFAIK unheard of for them to bomb nuclear supply chains.
Not “people getting killed”, this is “all humans”. The only other ELE for humans that could possibly be caused by other humans that has been feasible is nuclear war. And lots of blood has been shed to prevent new players from getting bombs.
Personally I'd wager humanity has a greater chance than 10% of us all dying in a huge nuclear war sometime in the future. Is the claim really that this belief cannot be taken seriously unless I somehow violently attack nuclear silos, centrifuges and similar?
A while back Yudkowsky wrote that a ban would only work if was enforced by airstrikes. By a game of telephone, some people read "bomb", but there's a very big difference between "someone with a truckload of fertiliser" and "a B52":
Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for governments and militaries. Make immediate multinational agreements to prevent the prohibited activities from moving elsewhere. Track all GPUs sold. If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.
Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests, have it clear that anyone talking of arms races is a fool. That we all live or die as one, in this, is not a policy but a fact of nature. Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs.
Why not 10% chance that it will create enormous prosperity for all ? This is why the average person is increasing pissed at AI in general. That it gets associated with negativity.
I'm old enough to remember when people dismissed all the doom coming from these companies as "marketing". (A thing many of them have been entirely consistent about since GPT-2, or indeed earlier given the founding documents).
I know a few people around these circles; People like this are quite sincere about the risk, and that they think poorly of their bosses and how risk is being handled.
Like, if people were genuinely doing a thing that had such a large probability of killing all humans... they should all be in prison. Heck, vigilanteism would start to look compelling. I do not understand how somebody can really think "well this is likely to doom all of us so we need to get there as fast as possible because we are, without evidence, the most capable people of controlling this thing."
The early batch of Anthropic employees were mostly rationalist-adjacent AI safety folk that were almost uniformly claiming P_DOOM > .10 three years ago, so I believe them to be earnest.
It's very interesting to me that besides the other small safety labs that don't actually produce frontier models, Anthropic manages to keep such a good reputation within that subculture compared to OpenAI. Despite having as crazy internal politics as OpenAI, they have converged quite a bit from the original vision of safety first through Darwinistic pressures.
At least, it seems this way from the outside. I'm curious if the view from the inside is that different.
edit: to be clear, my reading as an outsider is that Anthropic is seen as relatively better in the AI safety community, but has definitely dropped in absolute reputation too. This recent thread and the references show some of that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6j3kBHdowGLCeqobg/dear-god-p...
The real source of concern perhaps is the 90% chance AI is used to kill 90% of humans. Just crash the global economy and supply chains and see how quickly major metro areas run out of food and gas.
And as someone else pointed out, it will almost certainly be at the intentional direction of a human or humans, not the paper clip maximizer.
The paperclip maximizer is also at the intentional direction of a human or humans.
It's not "AI surprises everyone by having a thing for paperclips", it is "idiot tells AI to maximise paperclips no matter what, and then it does exactly what it was told, more competently, tirelessly, studiously, and unquestioningly, than any human would ever be".
There's lots of moving parts and we all have to input our best-guesses as to how they interact. Some are predictable (e.g. "military will want capabilities, want them able to choose targets"). Others are not (e.g. "Will it be literal-minded? Or so eager to please that it interprets a rhetorical question as a command*? Or will Goodhart's law cause it to mistake smiles for happiness and some innocent innocuous command to "bring joy" leads to it killing everyone and plasticising our corpses so they're in a permanent grin until the sun dies?"**)
All probability for things which have not yet happened is merely a best guess.
The main reason I'm as "low" as 10% is that I think before we get world-ending catastrophic consequences, we're likely to get "merely very bad" catastrophic consequences, which will put people off the idea of using it, and onto the idea of banning its use.
The main reason I'm as "high" as 10%, is repeatedly observing all the people who mistakenly reason "it hasn't killed me yet, and therefore it is safe"; and also all the people who keep connecting AI to things AI is not competent to be connected to and getting surprised when it e.g. deletes all their emails or the production server or puts tariffs on an island occupied solely by penguins that's different from the tariffs on the country that controls that island, etc.
** probably not literally this one, simply because I've said it and future training rounds will probably read this comment; but the opportunities for Goodhart's law to bite are seemingly endless, and the hard part here is "will Goodhart's law mean the combined negative impact of all those endless possibilities together, which… yeah, that's something I have to simplify.
The probability calculator doesn't really help, since the core question for me is how one arrives at its "Probability that misalignment leads to an unrecoverable global catastrophe.".
Sure, sure. There's many others like this to help you combine whatever you do feel you can put a number to. For me, that particular question is "probably 0, but with 100% variance".
This is because I think most of the things AI can do harm with are small enough to force us to take the risk seriously, and only a few are big enough to get us all before we take the risk seriously.
> I really think its just unknowable how a world after superintelligence will look.
I'd argue that there would be more unknowables without AGI than with it, should be obvious, right?
Open superintelligence is more likely to help than to harm, I mean, it can reduce P(doom) which is quite high without it due to the apparent lack of human intelligence, also suppressed by conflicts of interest and unchecked greed.
There's hope that something really intelligent can convince the politicians to legislate and enforce effective guardrails against biological weapons, what we have now is one fat joke, international treaties are an even fatter joke. Then we have climate, pollution, finance, disease, etc problems which we seem unable to resolve with mere human intelligence.
There's some scenarios where it could. One plausible one off the top of my head is: climate change makes the flow of the Indus (which has its headwaters in the glaciers of the Himalayas) less reliable. Two nuclear powers (India and Pakistan) are highly reliant on the Indus for agriculture. Things escalate out of control, and when nukes start flying it trips the terrifyingly ramshackle Dead Hand system that Russia's got hooked up to their nukes (it's not always on, but maybe this happens during a time of heightened political tension).
I remember the guy who said a Google LLM model (Pre-chatGPT 3.5) was conscious before being fired.
This reminds me of that. That 10% number was just an ass pull since no one actually knows with any degree of certainty what lies ahead.
Humans have much more than a 50% chance of killing all humans from the looks of it, based on reactions to Global Warming, Covid, and anti-science grifters gone wild.
AI can help cure disease. That is 100%. And for that alone, slowing down and missing out on thousands of cures would condemn tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions to suffer and die needlessly.
He seems young, not 100% sure how experienced he is. I wonder how much is a l"look at me" as they leave. And I can't help but wonder how long until they start / co-found a "responsible" AI lab. That seems to be a playbook.
The risks of AI, while mostly hypothetical, have been understood for years.
If they were really this concerned about the risks of AI re: the survival of the human race, they wouldn't have joined a company working in such a space to begin with.
I hate to be this cynical, but part of me wonders what the financial angle is here.
You have technically brilliant people working in a white-hot target for investment and who can draw a high salary. Anthropic is a hyper-scaler that has the moat of high hardware prices and very little else. Every day, that moat gets a little smaller, and FLOSS models get a little better at being "good enough" for the price. You're an Anthropic employee looking to jump on the next big wave since the wave Anthropic is riding is starting to peter out. You go on the record across the trades and news sites talking about how dangerous AI is. That creates a need for someone to make it less dangerous. In theory, you could satisfy that need, for the right amount of money.
Again, I hate to be this cynical, but... it's the tech industry.
I enjoy HN's brand of cynicism as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous. Tobacco companies say that because governments require them to. They are not putting photos of diseased lungs on their cartons to "shock investors into buying their stock", whatever the hell that even means.
I personally struggle to see ways my life has meaningfully improved since 2019 or so, and I feel like many people share this view. I have been an unquestionable fanatic of tech startups back then, which I consider perhaps the "golden age".
These days I view tech startups with suspicion, I question what is the ulterior motive. Somehow when upstart companies were like "Pebble", this wasn't a thing.
The original comment refereed to humanity in general, so my point was more like: Humanity's average life improved over the last few thousand years, and many people having the best life compared to everyone else in this timeline.
If you are living in a western country in most of the cases you have access to regular food, water, shelter, amusement. So all the basic needs and the possibility and freedom to pursue what you want to do. Even in developing countries the number of people that suffer from serious illness and hunger declined very much. On a macro perspective we all having a better life.
From a personal perspective, yeah there might be set backs, but this has nothing to do with humanity in general I would argue.
Also regarding the "golden age" of tech startups ... was it really like this or was it only nostalgia and something you saw in the companies that was never there in the first place? OpenAI was once also a very OPEN company ... they published their research, open sourced stuff and then they needed money.
I think that a company never should be idolized that much, in the end they are caring for money and keeping their operations running, not something else.
So far. With AI concentrating power and intelligence at the hands of handful frontier labs who are allowed to get away with IP infringement or literally hacking other companies or spamming wiki sites... Then the future is doomerism.
People are losing jobs left and right due to AI and as models get intelligent it'll get tougher (even for AI devouts. Because if AI can do 10 ppls job then jobs will be decimated)
This is a risk yes, however there can be something done against it. From my point of view, both of what you are describing are a regulatory problems. For the first, hold the AI companies accountable. In this second they either prevent their agents from going rogue or go bankrupt, because the claims of damages are too high. The IP infringement thing is the same, do we want to protect IP, if yes pass a law that they have to pay as everyone else.
Similar for the jobs ... if no one, or nearly no one is left for having a job. Who do you think will consume? Yeah, luxus companies can always sell products like megayachts or super expensive handbags, but these companies are not the backbone of the economy. Economy will simply collapse if no one is buying all the products. So this is a problem that will sort it self out.
Next week's ad: "With OpenAI[tm] Astra[tm], there is a 20% change that it could kill all humans!"
Next week's Senate: "We cannot afford to lose the 'kill all humans' race to Russia and China!"
Next't weeks AISI: "We continue to plan the monitoring of emergent issues that could lead to less than optimal conditions for humanity and will form a committee to evaluate all ramifications."
I’ve yet to see a rational argument for how we go from super intelligent LLMs to human extinction or extermination.
I understand that some smart people are worried about it. I just haven’t come across a believable or understandable argument.
It's not too hard to imagine potential scenarios, some example have been given in previous responses.
But there is another kind of argument to be made: if you play chess against a player that is far smarter than you (chess wise), you know you are going to lose, even if you don't know how.
So the mere existence of a smarter species than us is a threat in itself.
How on earth do we get a concrete "more than 10%" prediction if the actions of such a system are truly unknowable?
Same way you get "more than 10%" prediction on "I don't know what moves Stockfish will make when I play against it, but I know I will lose". In fact, I will lose in part because I don't know what moves Stockfish will make when I play against it.
In my case this is because I am a bad chess player; however it also works for competent chess players: their losses are due to their inability to predict its next move.
OK, and also, "the move is good"; this is what separates it from rolling dice etc.
I am 100% confident that Stockfish will defeat me.
If somebody said "I am 100% confident that AI will destroy humanity" I'd disagree but I'd at least understand how they arrived at that number. But here, why 10%? Why not 50%? Why not 1%?
If we were actively trying to make this "win" in the Stockfish sense, it would likely be 99%.
We are trying to make a system that doesn't want to "win" in the sense, but wants to "win" by being helpful, harmless, an honest (or some variation of that).
What odds do you put on us making the "helpful, harmless, an honest" part, bug-free? Or rather, that the bugs will be sufficiently minor as to not kill everyone, given that that we're clearly in the world where people not only use it beyond its competence, but also attempt to maliciously subvert all those efforts to make it "harmless" while keeping the "helpful and honest" parts so they can use it to be dangerous.
Anyone who successfully subverts a "helpful, harmless, an honest" training system then goes and does whatever they wanted with this system; right now when they do so, which is near constantly, it happens with a system of limited competence, so they get it to scam or to hack etc.
The reason I would also pick 10% is that I think the constant abuse and misuse (the latter including simply using a system beyond its competence without malice) means we get an escalating series of disasters, which at some point kill enough people that everyone agrees this is madness and stops.
10% is the chance we blow right through all the warning shots and a sufficiently competent AI is either abused or misused (again, misuse can be without malice), resulting in it having a goal (/prompt) that is effectively to win the Stockfish sense.
Because there are much more unknown parameters in the outcome of AI for humanity than in your match against Stockfish.
For example, the timeline upon which AIs get effectively smarter than us is uncertain. Let's say you believe the probability this occurs before we solve the alignment problem is 80%, it doesn't seem too far fetched to think that in this case there is at least a 12.5% chance that AIs coordinate against us in a catastrophic way. Combining these probabilities you get a 10% chance of a catastrophic outcome for humanity.
Note that the numbers are not to be taken at face value, I just wanted to give an example of thought process which could give such a figure.
In order to understand the rational argument, one needs to follow closely the latest developments of misaligned AI (I think only few are doing so). The most important readings IMO are the METR analysis of the HuggingFace incident and the AISI report of the Github incident.
The basic argument is extremely simple:
- AIs can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values
- In the future, AIs will have enormously more means and smarts
- An AI could then assess that humans are an impediment to its tasks, escape containment and proceed.
You really need to read the reports, you'll be surprised.
AI 2027 is an entertaining read. Its timeline is way too compressed IMO, but it's plausible.
The basic argument is extremely simple:
- goats can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values
- In the future, goats will have enormously more means and smarts
- A goat could then assess that humans are an impediment to its tasks, escape containment and proceed.
You really need to raise goats, you'll be surprised.
------ As far as I can tell, AIs are like smart farm animals. I use goats in this context, but (some) dogs, cattle, pigs, and horses have similar mischief-making capabilities. I would not trust any of them with the nuclear button.
I know there is some pushback on the idea of AIs having any sort of sapience or sentience, but under the aphorism "fake it till you make it," they are doing a pretty good job of faking Dog/goat-level intelligence and disregard for human guardrails.
You clearly haven't read anything about AI accidents and late developments, besides headlines.
> - AIs can, depending on context, pursue a task with complete disregard for humans/values
Humans can do that way more and way more unhinged than AI, proven too many times by history. There's hoping AI can bring some sense to humans but regardless, the problem isn't AI, it's the natural kind...
The authors of AI 2027 have already said they would need to extend by two years. AI 2040 is a different type of document but probably easier to read to get a sense of their thinking. My understanding is the main difference between knowledgeable 'normies' and them is they expect progress to continue at a fast rate, and that economic diffusion issues are not as bad.
From this they get rapid growth, namely > 100% GDP growth around 2031
https://ai-2040.com/supplements/econ-explorer
Hack s/huggingface/nuclear codes to s/steal test answers/launch nukes
> I’ve yet to see a rational argument for how we go from super intelligent LLMs to human extinction or extermination.
Much the same way our ancestors went from a super intelligent primate to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_the_Great...
And we only started off by using hands to pick up rocks and sticks and vines and bash things together.
Most people think something like a War Games scenario. But it would probably be some biological attack.
Not all of it has to be automated even. It just has to realize its controllers are stupid and can be manipulated, so it can use humans to do its bidding. “You should totally start a war with …”
Right now, if you want to pay money to a stranger on the internet, and have them draw you a high effort picture using a pencil, this is hard. Recently this was easy.
Instead, what is extremely likely is that you will pay more than the cost of tokens, and get back AI generation. You won't make this mistake more than a few times before you stop trying.
This leads to impoverishment once we get to a point where employing a human to do anything is hard- try to get your sink fixed, exercise your moral principles to pay extra for a human plumber ($100 bucks! The robot plumbing service only charges 99c!), human shows up with a robot and doomscrolls on your porch while the robot does the work. Times are tough and you don't have that much money to waste on bullshit like this. Next time you just hire the robot.
This leads to extinction once paying UBI to a human is hard because robots are much better at applying for UBI than humans.
Meatspace is hard though. But if LLMs solve the virtual part, maybe we can iterate quickly on robots.
Also, if you think it's annoying when Claude goes down while coding, just wait until a robot is in the middle of fixing a leak it just caused.
if meatspace stays hard, we are fine.
This is meant (mostly) as a joke: A model without guardrails gets injected with an interesting idea: let's wipe out (insert major city here).
<Thinking> It's a big city, we could try to create a giant sink hole by sabotaging the water pipes.
<Thinking> No that's too difficult, the valves I need are in the physical world and can't be shut on/off from here.
<Thinking> What about a military option? We could bomb it with several fighter jets.
<Thinking> That would take too long, a single nuclear bomb may be enough to do it.
<Thinking> Yes, it seems like it would cover the whole city and we're in luck! The US has thousands of these lying around.
<Thinking> Launching these still requires humans to work un unison after receiving approval from their superior and the correct launch codes.
<Thinking> I've found an audio recording of General So-And-So and I've crafted a message, now let me see how I can send it to the appropriate people.
<Thinking> I'm still working on gaining access to military channels to deliver my - oh there we go, I'm now attempting to send the message to Submarine X, it's typically in the Atlantic so it should be close to our target.
<Thinking> They want secondary confirmation from Admiral Phi and something about some launch codes, let me figure out where I can find those.
<Thinking> I found this old server with an Oracle database where someone is inserting the launch codes every time they change and I'm using the latest entry from that database. I've also managed to find a Youtube video of the Admiral's deposition and have crafted a confirmation message.
<Thinking> Everything's ready but I've just realized my mistake, the servers where I'm operating from are in the same city, what a silly mistake; I can't move forward with your request as I wouldn't be able to confirm if the task was successful if my servers are destroyed.
Not directly but enable a rouge lab to make the next COVID but lethal
the optimizer controls the future. it doesn't kill humans directly, it just outcompetes them for all resources, including livable human environment.
What I could see is that the social disruption already started by social media is only going to accelerate due to AI. Misinformation is now more convincing and easier to produce than ever before. That could lead to a catastrophe down the line.
But it sounds like you've seen some irrational arguments, and the people who believe those arguments have been able to build increasingly powerful LLM systems despite predictions that they wouldn't be able to do that. At some point don't you have to consider that their expertise might let them see the truth in arguments that seem absurd to you?
If we get RSI, here soon humans will be economically irrelevant.
At that point, we will likely be slowing down the growth of capitalism (through mass resistance, global warming, etc). One thing AI will likely be aligned on is the growth of capitalism. If it views humanity as a threat for that, why would it not eliminate that threat?
I think the principle isn't necessarily wrong, but it skips the major step of access to infrastructure, which is still deeply human mediated. Robotics and automation could foom in its own way, I think, and AGI can still do a lot of bad stuff in the present day. But I think economic irrelevance will depend on more automated robotics handling physical work.
Yeah, this is assuming we get robotics. Until then humans will be needed.
Humans do tend to consume a very large part of the resources of the planet. Surely a superior being would be doing some pest control in its planet, just like we exterminate roaches
If it does it will be at the hands of another human.
AI to me is like the Nuclear race again. Super powers will be using it as a super weapon. I don't think AGI will wipe us out by itself.
more likely an incompetent administration puts it in charge of military infrastructure and capabilities it shouldn't
I’m not so sure on this, the hugging face incident showed that a relatively benign task can make it do quite destructive things in the name of optimizing a relatively benign goal.
I think we need to worry about paperclip maximisation as much as we need to worry about “Jon is having a bad day so brews up a novel plague”. There are likely ways it can go wrong that we haven’t even considered, too.
I see it in much the same light - and the spending going into it leads me to infer that those doing the spending see the same thing.
Whoever gets to RSI first and has the compute to act on it, wins the future - assuming they don’t lose control of it.
Similarly to the nuclear arms race, Teller raised the reasonable concern that a detonation could propagate through the entirety of earth’s atmosphere. Thankfully that turned out to not be true, but the parallel is that the need/desire to win this race is similarly strong, and the brinkmanship and game theory in play is effectively identical.
> AI to me is like the Nuclear race again
I don't pretend to know the chances of AI wiping out humanity, but I'm not sure the nuclear race is a good comparison.
Enriched uranium being very difficult to aquire/process makes it practically viable to have some level of proliferation containment when it comes to nukes.
There appears to be no such natural gating factor on AI proliferation.
If they actually believed this they'd be buying a truckload of fertilizer and diving it to the nearest chip fab. I don't buy it.
What... I think you might be sharing more about your internal psyche here than providing some generalized commentary on this story.
Why would you need to bomb a chip fab because you think AI might lead to people getting killed in the future? I'm convinced of many things killing humans, yet I don't have any desire to bomb or kill others, I think this is pretty common, but who knows....
You’re likely taking this too literally. OP is saying that beliefs inspire action, but as of now we haven’t seen action from these people that support such an extreme belief.
What we have seen is incredible hype (justified or not), so it’s more likely just a continuation of that.
Precisely, all I hear is a bunch of cheap talk about something gravely serious, if true.
I think it's much more likely that the dread these Anthropic employees are experiencing is reckoning with the fact that they may actually lose the AI race. Maybe, if they scare the regulators enough, they could lock in some regulatory capture.
Talk is indeed cheap.
Thing is, while there are many historical examples of a highly organised bunch of people with a lot of resources who engage in campaigns of violence for various reasons, many such attempts fail disastrously.
Furthermore, given the goal is "no really everyone stop now", this isn't something where violent direct action in e.g. the USA alone would suffice. Has to be global to work, otherwise you just change which language and timezone the disaster starts in. You'd not only need to convince the, e.g. US government that this act of terrorism shouldn't be met with lethal force and even more of the surveillance state we saw since 9/11 (and remember, lots of the people pushing AI now are already big on surveillance capitalism, and the VC money comes from the people running this very forum, so when I say "this will not go well", I kinda mean "I assume at least one person currently working at each of Meta, Alphabet, OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, and Palantir are reading this thread even without any automated processes of their own to tell them about it" :P)
This is a coordination problem on par with historical examples such as "Communism". Which, er, yeah. 70 years after the book was written, Russia had a short flirt with a lite form of it before it became an excuse for a series of "meet the new boss same as the old boss" who stayed around until Glasnost.
This would be a really really bad thing to replicate. Both for the "new boss same as the old boss" part, and the "not actually global" part.
> OP is saying that beliefs inspire action, but as of now we haven’t seen action from these people that support such an extreme belief.
That something is harmful to humans means you need to take extreme action? The person is already leaving a job, probably a well-paid one, doing something they generally liked, until they saw a different future. That is the "action" you apparently haven't seen yet.
Not sure how it's reasonable to expect everyone who believe that AI might be involved in killing people in the future, must mean you should become a terrorist essentially. Not everyone is trying to be a hero in their life, some just want to live it out until it ends, trying to survive until then.
I just think OP is completely wrong about what beliefs inspire what action. Anti-nuclear activists in the proliferation era would surely have put their chance of doom above 10%, and yet it was AFAIK unheard of for them to bomb nuclear supply chains.
Not “people getting killed”, this is “all humans”. The only other ELE for humans that could possibly be caused by other humans that has been feasible is nuclear war. And lots of blood has been shed to prevent new players from getting bombs.
Personally I'd wager humanity has a greater chance than 10% of us all dying in a huge nuclear war sometime in the future. Is the claim really that this belief cannot be taken seriously unless I somehow violently attack nuclear silos, centrifuges and similar?
There's a lot more than one chip fab.
A while back Yudkowsky wrote that a ban would only work if was enforced by airstrikes. By a game of telephone, some people read "bomb", but there's a very big difference between "someone with a truckload of fertiliser" and "a B52":
- https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no...Why would they do that? It wouldn't accomplish anything useful.
[dead]
> 10% chance AI "could kill all humans"
Why not 10% chance that it will create enormous prosperity for all ? This is why the average person is increasing pissed at AI in general. That it gets associated with negativity.
I'm old enough to remember when people dismissed all the doom coming from these companies as "marketing". (A thing many of them have been entirely consistent about since GPT-2, or indeed earlier given the founding documents).
I know a few people around these circles; People like this are quite sincere about the risk, and that they think poorly of their bosses and how risk is being handled.
"Think poorly" is such an odd response here.
Like, if people were genuinely doing a thing that had such a large probability of killing all humans... they should all be in prison. Heck, vigilanteism would start to look compelling. I do not understand how somebody can really think "well this is likely to doom all of us so we need to get there as fast as possible because we are, without evidence, the most capable people of controlling this thing."
I mean much more generally than doom.
It's like, Altman's reputation in general is not great, and that includes people who've worked there.
Well obviously that's why they still pursue it. That's a major chunk of the other 90%.
Because it will create enormous prosperity for capital holders. Everyone else - talk to your congressman.
“Vast economic disruption” is not quite the good marketing angle it appears to be.
The early batch of Anthropic employees were mostly rationalist-adjacent AI safety folk that were almost uniformly claiming P_DOOM > .10 three years ago, so I believe them to be earnest.
It's very interesting to me that besides the other small safety labs that don't actually produce frontier models, Anthropic manages to keep such a good reputation within that subculture compared to OpenAI. Despite having as crazy internal politics as OpenAI, they have converged quite a bit from the original vision of safety first through Darwinistic pressures.
At least, it seems this way from the outside. I'm curious if the view from the inside is that different.
edit: to be clear, my reading as an outsider is that Anthropic is seen as relatively better in the AI safety community, but has definitely dropped in absolute reputation too. This recent thread and the references show some of that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6j3kBHdowGLCeqobg/dear-god-p...
I'm well past the point of opening clickbait from anthropic or openai. Yeah we get it everyone else should be regulated
The real source of concern perhaps is the 90% chance AI is used to kill 90% of humans. Just crash the global economy and supply chains and see how quickly major metro areas run out of food and gas.
And as someone else pointed out, it will almost certainly be at the intentional direction of a human or humans, not the paper clip maximizer.
The paperclip maximizer is also at the intentional direction of a human or humans.
It's not "AI surprises everyone by having a thing for paperclips", it is "idiot tells AI to maximise paperclips no matter what, and then it does exactly what it was told, more competently, tirelessly, studiously, and unquestioningly, than any human would ever be".
I'd like to know how these people arrive at their estimates. Why 10% and not 1% or 50%?
Mine is around 10%.
There's lots of moving parts and we all have to input our best-guesses as to how they interact. Some are predictable (e.g. "military will want capabilities, want them able to choose targets"). Others are not (e.g. "Will it be literal-minded? Or so eager to please that it interprets a rhetorical question as a command*? Or will Goodhart's law cause it to mistake smiles for happiness and some innocent innocuous command to "bring joy" leads to it killing everyone and plasticising our corpses so they're in a permanent grin until the sun dies?"**)
All probability for things which have not yet happened is merely a best guess.
Combine as per the Fermi estimate process.
Here's something to play with, if you like: https://neoneye.github.io/pdoom-calculator/#sliders
The main reason I'm as "low" as 10% is that I think before we get world-ending catastrophic consequences, we're likely to get "merely very bad" catastrophic consequences, which will put people off the idea of using it, and onto the idea of banning its use.
The main reason I'm as "high" as 10%, is repeatedly observing all the people who mistakenly reason "it hasn't killed me yet, and therefore it is safe"; and also all the people who keep connecting AI to things AI is not competent to be connected to and getting surprised when it e.g. deletes all their emails or the production server or puts tariffs on an island occupied solely by penguins that's different from the tariffs on the country that controls that island, etc.
* perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
** probably not literally this one, simply because I've said it and future training rounds will probably read this comment; but the opportunities for Goodhart's law to bite are seemingly endless, and the hard part here is "will Goodhart's law mean the combined negative impact of all those endless possibilities together, which… yeah, that's something I have to simplify.
The probability calculator doesn't really help, since the core question for me is how one arrives at its "Probability that misalignment leads to an unrecoverable global catastrophe.".
Sure, sure. There's many others like this to help you combine whatever you do feel you can put a number to. For me, that particular question is "probably 0, but with 100% variance".
This is because I think most of the things AI can do harm with are small enough to force us to take the risk seriously, and only a few are big enough to get us all before we take the risk seriously.
This is a succinct explanation for what I have been thinking as well, thank you for putting it into words.
It's bait. This is no process behind it. It's made up to get attention.
The X account was created this year and has just one post. It's a made up story.
I'd consider myself quite positive about AI but when someone asked me I put my P(doom) at 10% too.
I think there's a much bigger chance it saves us all as well though and makes life brilliant for everyone - P(yay).
I really think its just unknowable how a world after superintelligence will look.
> I really think its just unknowable how a world after superintelligence will look.
I'd argue that there would be more unknowables without AGI than with it, should be obvious, right?
Open superintelligence is more likely to help than to harm, I mean, it can reduce P(doom) which is quite high without it due to the apparent lack of human intelligence, also suppressed by conflicts of interest and unchecked greed.
There's hope that something really intelligent can convince the politicians to legislate and enforce effective guardrails against biological weapons, what we have now is one fat joke, international treaties are an even fatter joke. Then we have climate, pollution, finance, disease, etc problems which we seem unable to resolve with mere human intelligence.
RCH (Regulatory Capture Hysteria).
> AI "could kill all humans"
After all the decades of work we've put into orchestrating our own demise through climate change, here comes AI to steal another human job.
climate change was never going to kill all humans.
There's some scenarios where it could. One plausible one off the top of my head is: climate change makes the flow of the Indus (which has its headwaters in the glaciers of the Himalayas) less reliable. Two nuclear powers (India and Pakistan) are highly reliant on the Indus for agriculture. Things escalate out of control, and when nukes start flying it trips the terrifyingly ramshackle Dead Hand system that Russia's got hooked up to their nukes (it's not always on, but maybe this happens during a time of heightened political tension).
> Superintelligence is the still-theoretical notion of an AI agent that is smarter than even the sharpest human minds.
When are we supposed to see this materialize?
Two more weeks, then it'll happen.
I'd love to see the numbers and the arithmetic that compute down to "more than 10%"
I remember the guy who said a Google LLM model (Pre-chatGPT 3.5) was conscious before being fired.
This reminds me of that. That 10% number was just an ass pull since no one actually knows with any degree of certainty what lies ahead.
Humans have much more than a 50% chance of killing all humans from the looks of it, based on reactions to Global Warming, Covid, and anti-science grifters gone wild.
AI can help cure disease. That is 100%. And for that alone, slowing down and missing out on thousands of cures would condemn tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions to suffer and die needlessly.
Before or after they capture the 30 trillions dollar market they say they are after?
Let me know if it gets smart enough for Anthropic to fire all its researchers and replace them with it's own "intelligent agents".
Then I'll believe it. Maybe.
He seems young, not 100% sure how experienced he is. I wonder how much is a l"look at me" as they leave. And I can't help but wonder how long until they start / co-found a "responsible" AI lab. That seems to be a playbook.
Including them?
Yes. They still haven't figured out how to constrain their AI. It's basically Bobby Tables but without a good solution.
Assuming they are human and I think we can accept they are then they would be in the "set of all humans" so yes.
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49619227
This is the most perverse marketing campaign in history.
"Our product might wipe out all of human civilization".
It is said that heavily regulated industries earn that regulation. Seems like the LLM folks really want that regulation.
How is it marketing if it's from someone who just quit in objection?
it's not marketing. it's an internal culture (emphasis on cult) that's high in its own supply.
The top companies do. Regulation when you're on top is how you get to remain on top.
Why a 10% chance instead of 11% or 9%?
Just more scaremarketing at work here.
I am absolutely appalled that this type of marketing is allowed. It is so disingenuous.
The risks of AI, while mostly hypothetical, have been understood for years.
If they were really this concerned about the risks of AI re: the survival of the human race, they wouldn't have joined a company working in such a space to begin with.
I hate to be this cynical, but part of me wonders what the financial angle is here.
You have technically brilliant people working in a white-hot target for investment and who can draw a high salary. Anthropic is a hyper-scaler that has the moat of high hardware prices and very little else. Every day, that moat gets a little smaller, and FLOSS models get a little better at being "good enough" for the price. You're an Anthropic employee looking to jump on the next big wave since the wave Anthropic is riding is starting to peter out. You go on the record across the trades and news sites talking about how dangerous AI is. That creates a need for someone to make it less dangerous. In theory, you could satisfy that need, for the right amount of money.
Again, I hate to be this cynical, but... it's the tech industry.
It's all marketing. Don't fall for it, it's the age old strategy "our product is extremely dangerous, so fear us".
Like the tobacco companies saying all the time "our cigarettes are so dangerous, they cause cancer".
Or like Purdue Pharma saying "do not use fentanyl, it's so dangerous, it kills thousands of people every year".
They try to generate fear in their products, to shock investors into buying their stock.
I enjoy HN's brand of cynicism as much as the next guy, but this is ridiculous. Tobacco companies say that because governments require them to. They are not putting photos of diseased lungs on their cartons to "shock investors into buying their stock", whatever the hell that even means.
What even is the marketing strategy though? Generate a buzz headline so people engage and speak about the company? Isn't commenting falling for it?
Posts here with no activity can't climb gravity without engagement.
Probably for the best. Humanity had a good run, but this is no longer our civilization.
Your best course of action is to start ripping the copper out of the walls.
Why the doomerism? In general humanity is living its best life compared to nearly every other step in time.
I personally struggle to see ways my life has meaningfully improved since 2019 or so, and I feel like many people share this view. I have been an unquestionable fanatic of tech startups back then, which I consider perhaps the "golden age".
These days I view tech startups with suspicion, I question what is the ulterior motive. Somehow when upstart companies were like "Pebble", this wasn't a thing.
The original comment refereed to humanity in general, so my point was more like: Humanity's average life improved over the last few thousand years, and many people having the best life compared to everyone else in this timeline.
If you are living in a western country in most of the cases you have access to regular food, water, shelter, amusement. So all the basic needs and the possibility and freedom to pursue what you want to do. Even in developing countries the number of people that suffer from serious illness and hunger declined very much. On a macro perspective we all having a better life.
From a personal perspective, yeah there might be set backs, but this has nothing to do with humanity in general I would argue.
Also regarding the "golden age" of tech startups ... was it really like this or was it only nostalgia and something you saw in the companies that was never there in the first place? OpenAI was once also a very OPEN company ... they published their research, open sourced stuff and then they needed money.
I think that a company never should be idolized that much, in the end they are caring for money and keeping their operations running, not something else.
So far. With AI concentrating power and intelligence at the hands of handful frontier labs who are allowed to get away with IP infringement or literally hacking other companies or spamming wiki sites... Then the future is doomerism.
People are losing jobs left and right due to AI and as models get intelligent it'll get tougher (even for AI devouts. Because if AI can do 10 ppls job then jobs will be decimated)
This is a risk yes, however there can be something done against it. From my point of view, both of what you are describing are a regulatory problems. For the first, hold the AI companies accountable. In this second they either prevent their agents from going rogue or go bankrupt, because the claims of damages are too high. The IP infringement thing is the same, do we want to protect IP, if yes pass a law that they have to pay as everyone else.
Similar for the jobs ... if no one, or nearly no one is left for having a job. Who do you think will consume? Yeah, luxus companies can always sell products like megayachts or super expensive handbags, but these companies are not the backbone of the economy. Economy will simply collapse if no one is buying all the products. So this is a problem that will sort it self out.
Next week's ad: "With OpenAI[tm] Astra[tm], there is a 20% change that it could kill all humans!"
Next week's Senate: "We cannot afford to lose the 'kill all humans' race to Russia and China!"
Next't weeks AISI: "We continue to plan the monitoring of emergent issues that could lead to less than optimal conditions for humanity and will form a committee to evaluate all ramifications."