AI safety priorities shift too fast, critic argues as x-risk debate flares on X
NathanpmYoung · x · 2026-10-01
Replying to Timothy Lee, Nathan Young argues the AI harm agenda keeps shifting: the near-term harms once ignored were algorithmic bias, while many issues now crowded out by x-risk talk would have been seen as x-risk-adjacent three years ago.
Related event: Debate Over AI Risk Priorities: Extinction Risk vs Present-Day Harms(8 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Superintelligent simulators need human-loving bias and persona diversity, argues viemccoy — CatAstro_Piyush · 2026-10-01
- A literary glimpse of AI-native government: chatting with a .gov chatbot — KadriJibraan · 2026-10-01
- DoorDash launches texting agent that orders food and checks your fridge — omooretweets · 2026-10-01
- Will Rinehart: extinction and catastrophe aren't the same in AI risk talk — WillRinehart · 2026-10-01
- Twelve hours instead of twelve years: rethinking education in the age of AI — adrianscottcom · 2026-10-01
- NYRB essay: the AI math boom is a 'spectacle of computational power' chasing market control — stevenstrogatz · 2026-10-01