Veteran researcher vents: 'dangerous' x-risk label ignores years of controlled-AI research agendas
trevposts · x · 2026-09-25
Continuing his rebuttal of calls that x-risk researchers are "dangerous": the author is tempted to sarcastically ask why x-risk people never thought of building tightly controlled, non-superhuman AIs — but recognizes not everyone has followed the field for years. His point: those accused of distracting from such interventions have made them a major research agenda all along, which is why the accusation frustrates insiders.
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
- Stanford professor on AI-run bio experiments: without motion control, novices can't follow the AI — suragnair · 2026-09-25
- Safety researcher: 'Both capabilities and safety' ignores how risk assessments actually work — ambaonadventure · 2026-09-25