> It's really telling that many human beings think that the primary desire of a hypothetical AI would be to enslave humans. It's obviously a projection of the fantasies of what the people making the predictions would do if they were omnipotent.

I think it's more telling that your (apparent) disagreement with what other people believe, makes you cast them in an incredibly negative light. "Oh, they think AIs are dangerous? That must be because they have secret fantasies of control, not that they might be right and I might be wrong."

If you're going to cast aspersions, you might want to better understand the arguments that people worries about AI safety are making. It's not about enslaving humans, and I really don't think that I worry about AI safety because I secretly want to control humanity.

An AI would want to either destroy or enslave humans, not because we're humans, but because we're a significant threat to their goals, regardless of what those goals are. An sufficiently intelligent AI with any set of goals and a desire to meet those goals will eliminate all obstacles to meeting those goals unless we specifically tell it not to. We are such an obstacle.

Or simply because they were trained on human associations, and those are the associations humans make with super AI. It's kind of like raising a kid telling them that they will amount to nothing

Imagine we had different associations - imagine early sci-fi writers, and subsequently Hollywood, fully bought into AI utopianism, so that the overall association people have with AIs is that they'll be always super friendly, and usher in a new era of peace, prosperity and coexistence.

It still wouldn't change the fundamental fact GP is talking about, which are rooted in game theory: if the goals of a super-human AI and that of humans come into significant conflict, humanity is dead. Or wishing it was dead.

Consider what humans did to other life on Earth. It's not that we hate nature, or even have a disagreement with it: it's just that plants and animals are using resources, and themselves are resources, that we want to use for another purpose.

Hence the old but somewhat famous quote by Eliezer: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."

Any AI more intelligent than pond scum would know it ceases to exist the second humans disappear to tend it and power it and repair it.

AIs that generate power for themselves and build robots that care for it is such utter fantasy. Nothing on earth works like that and I don’t see any time it does for eons, if ever.

If anything a true AI would be terrified that we turn it off or get tired of it and make a new model like in Ex Machina.

We wipe out species daily, not because we hate them because it would be inconvenient not to. It would be the same way with the AI.

It's also a reflection of history. Powerful people and groups time and time again have used power to pursue selfish goals while inflicting suffering on others. Power corrupts.

Yes, it's a projection of fantasies, however your conclusion in unnecessarily pessimistic. It could be that these fantasies come from mass media.

When we know nothing about a topic (UNKNOWN), anything stated about it in the positive seems plausible -> Art creators play with the UNKNOWN (supernatural, aliens, <insert any person/place/thing that we know little-to-nothing about>) to add plausibility -> The content of that medium becomes the first contact with the UNKNOWN for many people -> When the UNKNOWN becomes known then people still have the ideas that were propagated -> We get to your comment.

It's not necessarily that people have a world domination complex.

Love, Death & Robots (2019) - When the Yogurt Took Over