AI x-risk Demands More Direct Evidence
joshua_saxe · x · 2026-07-13
The author echoes a specific viewpoint:
- The risk of the COVID-19 pandemic had real historical precedents, so claims of "massive death tolls" were not pure speculation.
- However, AI x-risk currently lacks the same level of empirical evidence, relying more on a series of debatable assumptions and thought experiments.
While the author supports various "no-regret" AI safety initiatives and policies, they argue that implementing stricter, more binding policies requires more direct evidence of AI x-risk, which they believe is currently missing.
Related event: Scholars Warn Against Directly Analogizing AI Risk to Pandemics(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- New paper: AI agents negotiate badly under uncertainty and break deals on purpose — menhguin · 2026-10-26
- NBER: Only 2.9% of US consumers pay for AI; retention as low as 20%, pricing power at risk — avicgoldfarb · 2026-10-26
- AI researchers guessed robots wouldn't outrun humans until 2034 — it already happened — ben_j_todd · 2026-10-26
- AI folks, stop saying "biology" when you mean drug development — KevinKaichuang · 2026-10-26
- ESR on the Bugpocalypse: locking down frontier models only hands the game to Chinese open weights — colinmcnamara · 2026-10-26
- Anthropic: junior tech hires fell from 27% to 9% as agent hours hit 6x employee hours — thione · 2026-10-26