AI safety debate: if you believe your P(doom), why aren't you fighting?
MichaelAlleged · x · 2026-09-10
A running X debate challenges AI safetyists: if they truly believed the P(doom) figures they cite, their stated certainty would necessitate drastic action — yet they aren't taking any, so the claim goes, they don't really believe it.
Critics of that argument counter that violence changes nothing since compute is everywhere including China; a real pause would require an international agreement. The exchange highlights the recurring inconsistency critique of doom rhetoric.
More from AGI Musings
- New AI whistleblower draws Blake Lemoine comparisons: the engineer fired for claiming AI was sentient — IsForAt · 2026-09-10
- MacAskill & Moorhouse: intelligence explosion could compress a century of progress into a decade — zetalyrae · 2026-09-10
- OpenAI's new model, in training since Aug 28, reportedly beat GPT-6-Astra in just one week — alexcovo_eth · 2026-09-10
- Beginner's paradox in the AI era: learn fundamentals or just ship with AI — HankYeomans · 2026-09-10
- AI Safety Researcher David Krueger: Gambling With Your Life Is a Sick Culture — DavidSKrueger · 2026-09-10
- CRM Won't Be Ripped Out, But Its Agent-Layer Risk Is Real, Investors Argue — matt_slotnick · 2026-09-10