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
- Replit CEO on the 'self-driving company': agents to absorb coordination costs by 2030 — amasad · 2026-10-27
- US senator slams AI industry for proposing 50-death threshold for 'catastrophic incident' — peterwildeford · 2026-10-27
- Replit CEO Says AI Makes All Software De Facto Open Source; Aakash Gupta Asks What Moats Remain — aakashgupta · 2026-10-27
- Understanding the AI consciousness debate: which theory of mind is behind it — msharmas · 2026-10-27
- Functionalism: if consciousness is just what the brain computes, silicon can run it too — msharmas · 2026-10-27
- iPhone case with 85,000 reviews in days: everything fake in the age of abundance — tekbog · 2026-10-27