Rebutting Lambert: "effectively zero but not actually zero" risk matters
MoonL88537 · x · 2026-09-09
In a discussion with Nathan Lambert, this user argues the risk of current AI capabilities is "effectively zero but not actually zero," and that distinction matters. Analogizing to physical infrastructure, they claim if what happened at HF happened in real physical systems, the line would already be crossed — and honesty about all this is the only way through.
More from AGI Musings
- Paying mathematicians $1,000 to review AI proofs — but how much work is it? — ctjlewis · 2026-09-10
- Nic Carter challenges Anthropic's 'Aligned Machine God' belief: how would getting there first even work? — examachine · 2026-09-10
- Viral jab at frontier labs: 'too dangerous for anyone else to own, but we take all credit cards' — prateekj · 2026-09-10
- Ted Chiang, Ken Liu and writers tackle writing and reading in the age of AI — begusgasper · 2026-09-10
- Sentdex: centralized human power, not AI, is the real x-risk — Sentdex · 2026-09-10
- Apple keynote take: ambient AI matters more than the foldable iPhone Duo — VraserX · 2026-09-10