Anthropic researcher rebuts the claim that averted AI risk means worriers were fools
geoffreyirving · x · 2026-09-10
Geoffrey Irving, a researcher at Anthropic, pushed back on a common argument: "If there's a real chance of AI loss of control and it's somehow averted, the people who made that happen likely won't get credit and will be remembered, if at all, as silly worry-warts" (the original poster cited how nuclear risk was discussed in the 90s/00s).
Irving calls this false, arguing that one of the many consequences of superintelligence actually arriving safely would be not making dumb "people who worry about risks are silly if those risks didn't occur" mistakes — i.e., a genuinely safe AI future would itself entail proper recognition of risk-warning work.
More from AGI Musings
- Should Anthropic researchers quit loudly? AI safety circle debates — JMannhart · 2026-09-10
- Quarter of AI researchers put human extinction risk above 25%, survey finds — KatjaGrace · 2026-09-10
- Beff Jezos: p(1984) far exceeds p(AI Doom), doomers are useful idiots — beffjezos · 2026-09-10
- Beff Jezos: AI regulation push aims to ban open source and nationalize Anthropic as a weapon factory — beffjezos · 2026-09-10
- Jacob Coxon's post tops 120M views as AI safety wind suddenly shifts — scottleibrand · 2026-09-10
- AIxBio researcher: skip the bitter lesson debate — more compute means lower per-dollar efficiency — anshulkundaje · 2026-09-10