KOL draws line: catastrophe talk signals anti-AI agenda, not genuine safety concern
kevinnbass · x · 2026-09-12
The author offers a litmus test for the AI safety discourse: people constantly invoking catastrophe and terrifying "incidents" often want to harm AI development or gain power, while those who genuinely want AI to benefit humanity talk about building responsible systems that reduce risk. He calls the former "evil" and urges discernment — a pointed contribution to the ongoing doomer-vs-builder debate rather than a detailed argument.
More from AGI Musings
- Sam Altman reportedly open to slowing cutting-edge AI development, per report — Polymarket · 2026-09-12
- AI's compute race: safety warnings, regulation talks and a $13B infra deal collide — eyishazyer · 2026-09-12
- Pedro Domingos: people now know AI, harder to dupe into doomer panic — pmddomingos · 2026-09-12
- Pedro Domingos: dumb AI is unsafe, smart AI is safe — accelerate AI research — pmddomingos · 2026-09-12
- Turing Award winner David Patterson: superintelligence will be the doom of the doomers, like Y2K — davidpattersonx · 2026-09-12
- If your five closest companions are all AIs, do you start talking like one? — ethanniser · 2026-09-12