Why define AI risk as "billions in damages" instead of "lights out for humanity"?
herbiebradley · x · 2026-08-29
In a discussion about AI biosecurity risks, Herbie Bradley questions setting the bar at "lights out for humanity". He argues that based on the arguments used, defining the risk as causing "billions in damages" is more justifiable and easier to organize around.
Related event: AI safety debate: argue billions in losses, not extinction(6 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Billions of agents will be customers in the next decade, requiring unique infrastructure — Roger_M_Taylor · 2026-08-29
- Gary Marcus cites data: AI capex boom yields no productivity gains — GaryMarcus · 2026-08-29
- AI alignment may require 'redemption' for agents, revealing moral scaling laws — jachiam0 · 2026-08-29
- The Money-Happiness Debate: Stevenson-Wolfers vs the Easterlin Paradox Still Unresolved — dioscuri · 2026-08-29
- 5 Rules for AI Writing Amid Druckenmiller AI-Authored Op-Ed Controversy — The AI Daily Brief · 2026-08-29
- Productivity Expert Chad Syverson on AI and Impact — Afinetheorem · 2026-08-29