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
- Alpha School investigation: 17 campuses on probation, Bill Ackman as shadow lead, Holmes involved — benjaminjriley · 2026-11-02
- Google's chief economist: AI will transform more jobs than it kills — gains come from redesigning workflows — danielrock · 2026-11-02
- Daniel Lemire: AI is exploding demand for boring compute, server CPUs to double — lemire · 2026-11-02
- Alignment researcher: the word "aligned" implies consistencies that don't exist — davidmanheim · 2026-11-02
- By 2035, Indian Parents Will Ask How Many Agents You Manage, Not Your Salary — theteknosaur · 2026-11-02
- Under 5% of US consumers pay for AI, yet compute demand is already forcing usage cuts — NinaDSchick · 2026-11-02