Survivable catastrophes get appropriations, but ASI risk defies that logic
scifi_tessa · x · 2026-09-15
In a debate with ramez and davidmanheim, scifitessa argues the framing holds: policymakers can budget for a catastrophe that leaves survivors — extinction claims get op-eds, but appropriations get signed for the survivable version. She agrees prosaic biorisks and AI×bio risks justify billions in biodefense spending, but that doesn't help with ASI: don't plan to outsmart something 100x smarter and 100x faster.
More from AGI Musings
- Lagarde warns Europe faces 'unprecedented risk' of being cut off from AI — talkingatoms · 2026-09-15
- A four-tier taxonomy of mind: what AI lacks is self-consciousness, not consciousness — FalseDinner335 · 2026-09-15
- HBS classmate's take: 'Americans do business, but the Chinese do survival' — nijfranck · 2026-09-15
- LeCun: LLMs alone are not a path to human-level AI — ylecun · 2026-09-15
- UChicago AI panel: Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds, experts agree race-now-guardrails-later is risky — WillRinehart · 2026-09-15
- AI's $1.1T data-center bet: productivity must grow 2.7x by 2030 to break even — nordicinst · 2026-09-15