AI doomerism in retrospect: researchers now focused on surviving post-AGI, not debating if it happens
mobileraj · x · 2026-09-18
mobileraj offers four takes on AI doomer scenarios:
- Researcher shift: many researchers he's spoken with were already doomers a year ago; the debate has moved from whether AGI happens to how to preserve humanity in a post-AGI world.
- Classic heuristic: we over-estimate in the near term and under-estimate in the long term.
- Behavioral signal: frontier lab execs wouldn't be casually posing at Dreamforce if the world ends in two years.
- Probability view: there's always been 5% chance of a rogue nuclear actor; AI governing those buttons without human-in-the-loop could be argued to raise risk to 10% — or lower it to 1%, like autonomous vehicles reducing accidents.
Overall: doom is now the background assumption; discussion is shifting from "if" to "how."
Related event: AI researchers now focus on preserving humanity in a post-AGI world(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Beff Jezos: 'Pause the Decels, not the AI,' calling out politicians stalling US AI — beffjezos · 2026-09-18
- How Yudkowsky and Bostrom convinced tech CEOs on AI risk 12-16 years ago, shaping today's discourse — binarybits · 2026-09-18
- Polymarket prices 35% chance frontier AI labs announce a joint pacing deal in 2026 — Polymarket · 2026-09-18
- AI Systems Are Quickly Becoming Unmonitorable and We Just Take Them at Their Word — davidmanheim · 2026-09-18
- Dario Is the Belisarius of pDOOM, One Cryptic Post Argues — gaganghotra_ · 2026-09-18
- ML veteran Burkov: AI media covering 'shocking outputs' is like decoding a random number generator — burkov · 2026-09-18