News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:OpenAI safety leader quits, warning AI company's culture ... by katatue on Sunday October 04, 2026 @03:43PM (#49957129)
Why do you treat unpredictability as neutral? If something has a potentially existential, but completely unpredictable outcome, surely one should avoid heading for it?

Like, knowing that there is a limited number of plausible doom scenarios and what these are, would make me more confident in taking the risk than settling on "it's literally the singularity, we can't know what happens beyond".

Re:OpenAI safety leader quits, warning AI company's culture ... by AlexErrant on Tuesday October 06, 2026 @01:03AM (#49974399)
Perhaps I'm not being clear.

Doom-post-RSI is still very much possible and should be avoided. It is not neutral. If I had a high-variance coin that would either kill or uplift humanity, I would not flip it. The status quo is preferable to extinction.

I am being _descriptive_ in my comments. I am not being _prescriptive_. Nowhere am I telling anyone what to do or what to think: quite the opposite. I am simply saying things that, to me, are obviously true.

I'm perhaps being... loose with my language when it comes to knowing things post-singularity. E.g. we can still discuss scenarios in which the takeoff is fast/slow, or what would be necessary to bring robotics/electricity/logistics to the wider world, what the limits of intelligence are (you can't RSI your way to a bioweapon if you lack a wetlab). That kinda thing. And it's even likely that RSI will be spikey: why would RSI in, say, machine learning, necessarily lead to superintelligence in, say, writing fiction? Or cooking a Michelin-star meal?

My main point is that doomers saying SUPER INTELLIGENCE IS ENOUGH TO KILL US ALL is baseless. That's all.