Critique of AI safety discourse: perpetual '10% chance' warnings, never concrete scenarios
ryunuck · x · 2026-11-11
ryunuck criticizes a recurring pattern in AI safety discourse: warnings stay at the level of "10% chance" or "material risk" without ever walking through how the catastrophe would actually play out. He mocks rationalists for using the concept of "infohazard" to legitimize the evasion — "it's not safe to describe the threat because somebody would do it."
A sharp in-circle take on safety rhetoric rather than a substantive analysis.
More from AGI Musings
- Reddit take: $200k GDP per capita is the threshold for a post-labor AI world — deferare · 2026-11-11
- Who owns scientific progress under gradual disempowerment? — najoungkim · 2026-11-11
- Terence Tao: AI lacks its Shannon theory, so nobody knows scaling's limits — burny_tech · 2026-11-11
- The same people cite an existential AI race with China and want looser GPU export controls — austinc3301 · 2026-11-11
- Turing Post editorial: the anxiety of abundance in AI is burning out top performers — TheTuringPost · 2026-11-11
- Redwood reframed: doing narrow safety work to buy odds, not solve AI safety broadly — austinc3301 · 2026-11-11