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
- François Fleuret: Only Two Long-Term Futures — No Super AI, or Staying Fully Human With It — francoisfleuret · 2026-09-11
- IG reel debunking the 'winning the AI race against China' fallacy hits 500k likes — louisvarge · 2026-09-11
- Post-AI World Leaves No Room for Learning on the Job — rachittshah · 2026-09-11
- Researcher questions AI safety eval firm, citing 'blatantly sloppy' security and monitoring — Kyrannio · 2026-09-11
- AI researcher memes agent-swarm tinkering with He Jiankui's embryo-editing quote — dejavucoder · 2026-09-11
- nabla_theta: happy to be wrong if the AI utopia arrives with little ex ante risk — nabla_theta · 2026-09-11