AI ethics researcher claims lab insiders coldly weigh catastrophe deaths against 'abundance'
LuizaJarovsky · x · 2026-11-06
AI ethics researcher Luiza Jarovsky argues the public isn't ready for what AI labs discuss behind closed doors: many insiders reportedly believe that even if catastrophic AI incidents kill many people, the 'strongest, smartest, least vulnerable' would survive and build an AI-driven 'future of abundance.' She cites Anthropic's proposed AI safety bill defining catastrophic risk as 50+ deaths or serious injuries, sarcastically noting that under that math, successive incidents killing 49 people each would still count as a net positive. She predicts the real thinking driving the 'race to superintelligence' will eventually surface.
More from AGI Musings
- Survey of 200 CIOs: Enterprise AI returns concentrate by workload and rise with scale — BenBajarin · 2026-11-06
- Democrats push for day-1 ban on superintelligent AI with up to 20 years in prison — KyeGomezB · 2026-11-06
- In Banks's Culture novels, unlimited compute dissolves envy via simulated lives — yunta_tsai · 2026-11-06
- "People hate AI not because of bad PR, but because it drains meaning from life" — juliey4 · 2026-11-06
- Gary Marcus: Market spooked by idea AI companies may finally face accountability — GaryMarcus · 2026-11-06
- "Any definition of safety antagonistic to capability will never work" sparks debate — thisismyhat · 2026-11-06