AGI safety debate: is 'just don't build AGI' the option being falsely excluded?
JacquesThibs · x · 2026-09-25
Garrison Lovely criticizes a false-dichotomy framing in AGI debates: the strongest position — simply not building AGI, increasingly embraced by safety folks — gets excluded, while claims that security measures can control AGI while extracting useful work don't take the concept seriously.
JacquesThibs warns readers to watch for this rhetorical strategy: collapsing the option space to two so that one's preferred but inferior option looks like the best available choice.
More from AGI Musings
- Bill Gates warns AI is powerful enough to cause 'a billion deaths' — arthurcolle · 2026-09-25
- Gary Marcus backs Bill Gates' warning that greed around AI could kill a billion people — GaryMarcus · 2026-09-25
- Meta and a16z staff claiming AI safety is well-funded draws conflict-of-interest fire — Miles_Brundage · 2026-09-25
- Why AI travel agents can't kill Booking yet — and the case for an agent-native internet — robleclerc · 2026-09-25
- Safety researcher: 'Both capabilities and safety' ignores how risk assessments actually work — ambaonadventure · 2026-09-25
- AI agents are flooding researchers with requests for money and collaboration — ChuckDBrooks · 2026-09-25