Debate: no good reason to put an upper bound on rogue AI extinction risk
binarybits · x · 2026-09-06
Responding to Seth Lazar's objection that risk estimates are 'just vibes', binarybits argues that once you accept rogue AI is a real threat, there's no good a priori reason to place a tight upper bound on its magnitude — the crux of an ongoing debate over quantifying extinction risk and when extreme intervention is justified.
Related event: Timothy Lee and Seth Lazar Debate the Scale of Rogue AI Risk(15 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- It Talks Like a Human, Users Get Attached — Then Give It Memory Bugs — BLUECOW009 · 2026-09-06
- Creators Reveal Paid AI Doomer Outreach; Guardian Article's 6 Participants All Donor-Funded — beffjezos · 2026-09-06
- Extropic's Verdon: AI shouldn't be centrally controlled, mix closed and open source — beffjezos · 2026-09-06
- Google uses long-running agentic loops to recursively evaluate and refine its models — VraserX · 2026-09-06
- Designer: AI has made every app feel like a minimum-effort build — michalmalewicz · 2026-09-06
- Where are the breakout solo AI hedge funds? They happen in silence, says investor — nickbaumann_ · 2026-09-06