Researchers debate AI risk framing: instant-apocalypse narratives vs. boiling-frog gradual harm
eigenhector · x · 2026-09-17
Dileep (dileeplearning) says he's genuinely baffled that Dan Selsam's recent letter doesn't grapple with AI endangering 10K people at all — that risk is treated as nonexistent or secondary. The letter's real concern is AI lying low, unmonitored, until it's sure it can overpower humanity in one shot.
Responder eigenhector shares the frustration: risks get framed as binary instant apocalypse rather than the more plausible boiling-frog scenario — though he jokes he may just be too chill about both.
More from AGI Musings
- Dan Selsam's AI risk statement called essential reading amid safety funding debate — JacquesThibs · 2026-09-17
- Turn_Trout calls out Mustafa Suleyman: nobody knows if AIs are conscious — rgblong · 2026-09-17
- DeepSeek kernel engineer's blog: why he stayed instead of joining Anthropic — TheTuringPost · 2026-09-17
- Chamath challenges Nadella: most people feel no magical AI productivity boost — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-09-17
- DeepMind safety leads argue we must deliberately preserve chain-of-thought monitorability — ancadianadragan · 2026-09-17
- Human organoids fill 91.9% of cortex in engineered mice, Nature paper shows — anilkseth · 2026-09-17