AI Safety Defenders Hit Back at 'Crying Wolf' Critics With Ozone Hole Analogy
BlackHC · x · 2026-09-11
- Responding to mockery that safety advocates have been "crying wolf," the author argues the warnings were always about a future wolf, meant to enable slow, steady preparation — and things going fine so far is evidence it worked.
- He asks what the counterfactual world would look like without alignment and safety being part of LLM research from the start.
- Analogy: dismissing the ozone hole as overblown ignores that early action is exactly why disaster never happened.
Related event: AI Safety Warnings Were Preparation, Not Crying Wolf(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Why AI doomerism splits by generation: Xennial optimism vs Zoomer fear — nptacek · 2026-09-11
- Replit CEO joins backlash against AI doomers, says focus should be on cybersecurity not sci-fi — amasad · 2026-09-11
- Replit CEO Amjad Masad: AI existential-risk talk is a distraction from real cybersecurity work — amasad · 2026-09-11
- Nine Years Into the Caplan-Yudkowsky AI Doom Bet, 6.8M Deaths a Day Would Be Needed to Win — Dan_Jeffries1 · 2026-09-11
- After Navier-Stokes-level math results, even AI skeptics are now convinced AGI is here — cloneofsimo · 2026-09-11
- Researcher rips OpenAI and Anthropic: founded to slow Google, now racing each other and scaring the public — Dr_Atoosa · 2026-09-11