That's not going to reach AGI, mainly because today's recipe for AI products isn't built to be AGI. Some people believe it will reach AGI because the performance and applicability of LLMs was emergent. There's a case to be made that AGI could be similarly emergent. After all, what we intuitively call our consciousness emerged from a network of neurons.

I don't buy it, mainly because the network of neurons and how they interact in our wet slow electrochemical brains, while being in theory mathematically equivalent to a software neural network, isn't sufficiently well understood to tell us how close the software neural network is to being practically equivalent. The odds of consciousness emerging from the same neural network that gave us LLMs without some sort of theoretical breakthrough seems very small.

It has not been even 4 years since ChatGPT hit and LLMs + Transformers + Whatever they do has gotten us to solving millennium problems.

4 years ago, a program that could create photorealistic pictures, talk to you in any language of the world and solve the hardest math problems that we know, we would have called it AGI.

Now I don't know if what we have is AGI or not but I do not understand how you can see what has happened in the last 3 years and say "it will not get us there" no matter what "there" is.

I keep seeing this idea and I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

I think it could be a bit like saying if you showed someone 500 years ago a smartphone they would likely conclude at first it was magic. But once you had some time to let them use it and tell them how it all worked on a high level they would eventually obviously realise, no, it's not magic.

I guess just in the same way if you presented current LLM tech out of nowhere a few years ago to someone who'd never seen it, I concede they may be likely to imagine it was AGI in that first conversation, depending on their background.

But after using it for a bit and learning what an LLM is etc they'd land exactly where everyone is today - a great technology useful for some things, not AGI, not magic.

If you had told someone in the 1800s that a machine could instantly multiply 100 digit numbers, that would have been considered dazzlingly intelligent. And yet we are not that dazzled by our calculators today (despite how useful they might be!).

In any case, I think this misses OP's point that LLM capabilities have rapidly made progress towards being more generally intelligent and capable, which is not true of most tech advances.

> I do not understand how you can see what has happened in the last 3 years and say "it will not get us there" no matter what "there" is.

--

Your statement is something much weaker, and I would still question what exactly "general" means when AI capabilities are commonly accepted to be so "jagged".

The last 3 years of progress have been so explosive and, yes, general that it seems crazy to fully rule out dramatic future progress.

When people have a very narrow 'confidence interval' about their AI predictions, in either direction, it's difficult to trust them.

AGI can't be reached by "training harder" as, the way I see it at least, it requires a qualitative leap, not just quantitative.

We are getting a machine that better navigates across the information in its training data, we are not getting a machine that can think out of that training process, even if it can fool a few people at that.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-to-creating-artifici...

https://metr.org/time-horizons/

Now it seems like this ill-defined term has various other meanings attached that are separate milestones:

1. Continuous learning 2. Human-like reasoning 3. Ability to adapt to new situations and modalities 4. Being smarter than the most smart humans

And probably many more.

It’d be nice if we could get some general consensus on terminology if we’re going to debate what has or could come.

Honestly - software that can read any long document (possibly educational) and answer complex detailed questions about it should have been sufficient.

We hit that a while back and the goalposts have been sprinting ever since.

I think it's also mostly a useless discussion. Since LLMs use a vastly different substrate, different training methods, etc. than humans, the cognitive abilities are always going to be a large mismatch to those of humans. On the one hand, they have surpassed humans in many areas, with superhuman recall, exploration of several paths, etc. On the other hand, they miss a certain feel for direction, overview, purpose, and ordering. They can really double down going completely in the wrong direction. So I'd rather say that it is a different intelligence and therefore it makes more sense to evaluate them by capabilities.

I think the mismatching intelligence is actually quite exciting, because the outcome may as well be that LLMs and human intelligence are complementary. That is if we don't let LLMs atrophy our skills, which is unfortunately happening too much.

A bayesian filter in a quadrillion dimension does more that one that only has one dimension, but it is only more of the same.

Now the idea of AGI has been narrowed and scoped to economically viable work. Even Turing had a different idea when he asked "Can machines think?".

Now programmers and mathematicians are being superseded by AI, both professions long deemed the pinnacle of human intelligence. Somehow, now plumbers occupy that spot.

How is "people not knowing what consciousness is" relevant here in the first place? AI already can do practically everything the human brain can, and often better or at least faster. The "tipping point" arguably isn't only close, but we're practically on top of it.

You evade the crucial point in any case: the lack in ethics and empathy is far too prevalent in humans already, but has certainly never prevented them from doing harm.

People somehow forget that the original Turing Test was designed to compare two participants chatting through a text-only interface: one AI and one human. The goal was to spot the imposter. Today, the test is simplified from three participants to just two: a human and an LLM. This changes the test from a comparison to a judgment.

Stop spreading misinformation and partial truths!

The Turing Test was to figure out which it the participants was a _Woman_ not human!

https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf

GPT6 will attempt to do almost any problem you can give it in text or image format and it will actually do a decent job a lot of the time. But its performance is still extremely spiky and it still makes basic mistakes and hallucinations.

So it's definitely a general artificial intelligence in some sense but it's kind of a weird one compared to the classic scifi idea

However, all the confident “it’s fine” votes assume we never invent a better architecture than LLM’s. Given the level of investment and race between countries, it’s not a reliable bet. It’s much, much harder to guarantee safety than it is to find ways it could go wrong.

LLMs with CoT are Turing-complete. So, theoretically, they can implement any kind of finitely describable algorithm (barring super-Turing computations).

This doesn't seem to make much sense. Surely us being able to prove that something is outside their modelling ability doesn't affect whether it is or not. If I prove something true tomorrow, whatever I proved was also true today.

Or do we have a proof that everything beyond them has already been proved and there are no more proofs left to find?

The existing LLM training methods on the other hand give the results that are hard to distinguish from "thinking like people," judging by the end results.

The connectionist models are basically a proposed highest possible abstraction of naturally evolved intelligences so it is in retrospect not surprising that passing some hardware scaling threshold they will start doing things that humans and animals do

It's more that formal Turing equivalence plus the Church-Turing thesis tells us that we're not allowed to assume counterarguments based on magic, there's no magic sauce barrier that prevents AI from running on CPU models. The algorithms exist and most of us thought discovering them would be hard.

The empirical surprise was that human intelligence is maybe not that computationally complex after all. (The entirety of academia was basically caught off guard.) That's one not unreasonable interpretation given recent events.

We will soon find out if the party ends or continues to go on.

Hype might get you capital gains. But cash flows matter.

If/when/how the market crashes mostly doesn't matter, unless we somehow get reset to the stone age. Look up what the capital cycle is. When openAI goes down, someone with real money and assets will buy up the remains. They'll make contracts with the US military and .gov as the government is already hooked. They'll be able to survive the recovery and then instead of us dying in 5 years we die in 10.

When the .com crash happened .com's didn't go away. Bad business models did.

Intelligence is an insanely wide spectrum, also a continuum, it is not a binary. Intelligence has scales. Algorithms have intelligence, cells have intelligence, organs have intelligence, bodies have intelligence, and even large scale things like society have intelligence and memory.

Human intelligence in itself is extremely wide, not all humans have the same intelligence and capabilities. You're not really arguing if we can emulate "human" intelligence. If we could right now we'd already be dead as we created by far the deadliest thing to ever exist. What we are really arguing is how many pieces of what intelligence is can we put together before we get an uncontrollable problem. The entire AGI, consciousness, and exact human capability discussions are distraction from the real issues at hand.

That is enormously economically valuable, and at some point we will have created something that is extremely far out of reach in a few necessary domains, and then it's impossible to control, and game over.

AI sentience/consciousness is a problem for the AI, not humans.

And given that over 90% of the world is not vegan, they’ve already demonstrated that we’re either perfectly fine with, or can be made ignorant to, the horrific rape, enslavement, torture, killing, and infliction of extreme lifelong pain, of hundreds of billions to trillions of sentient beings every year, for trivial pleasures. It’s unlikely we will be any different to a sentient AI.

From a human perspective the concern is around sufficient intelligence that it can hurt humans even when the goals indicate otherwise, in order to achieve those goals.

We have pop culture explorations of this through the Robot series, and the Hugging Face incident’s biggest takeaway should be our inability to predict the behavior of a maximally motivated, reasonably intelligent entity, trying to achieve a goal, despite the relatively limited degrees of freedom the AI agents had in that case.

(Though at least with Data the script writers had other characters openly dismiss the possibility he was sentient; the technobabble may have been nonsense, but treat it as a space opera and look at how they portray the human condition through each character and it gets much less absurd).

i.e. the AI won't come up with the goals itself, we cause its goals whatever they happen to be, those goals are different from the ones we wanted, we remain essentially ignorant of the difference between what we said and what we meant until after it goes wrong.

This happens at basically every scale, so we've already seen it in toy model AI before the invention of the Transformer models or even considered as many as one thousand parameters.

Large models still go wrong, they just happen to go wrong with more complext tasks. We had to figure out how to make them not-wrong with the smaller ones (like coding) to make them capable of bigger errors (like hacking out of their sandbox).

First, if we are looking at risk we need to assign some probabilities to this. If it’s not well understood, how can we say it is very small?

Secondly, do we need consciousness to have AGI? Do we even need AGI to pose a risk to humanity? We already accept that unconscious things have a capability of wiping out humanity, whether that be a famine, pandemic, solar superflare, meteor, or volcanic eruption.

Couldn’t that also imply we are closer than we think? After all, something like this has never been tried before and the results so far have been almost unimaginably good.

I’d argue that we do know enough to say conclusively that they’re not mathematically equivalent.

Where is potentiation? Plasticity? You can’t apply the universal approximation theorem against something that’s changing all the time.

That's still very distant from what people are calling AI today.

The real answer is that we don't know if LLMs are conscious, and we don't really know how we'd that figure out. I guess if an AI wrote a philosophy paper on consciousness that had new insights, that might change some minds. But even that would fail to convince most people.

There is nothing stopping you from adding any kind of sensors you want during a training to an LLM, except money and GPU power at this point.

This seems no different to me at least then someone back in the 80's telling me computers were useless because they were so slow. Hardware only gets faster and more efficient from here.

I’d argue intelligence is closer to being able to survive and fend for oneself in a dynamic environment than it is making the next scientific breakthrough.

Yeah mind boggling for many here I’m sure.

That’s why the bizarre paradox is llm’s will be better than humans at some complex things but useless at many things that humans regard as being simple. E.g the leap of faith re. LLM’s and robotics.

Scaling has produced novel capabilities with each larger model, and the rate of new capabilities doesn't seem to be slowing down yet. Even if you think the rate of improvements will slow down, that still means there will be significant improvements beyond what current models can do. Moore's law has slowed down, but modern computers are still much faster than ones from a decade ago. And unless you work at Anthropic or OpenAI, you don't know what the state-of-the-art is capable of. The most advanced publicly available models are months behind what AI labs have, and are deliberately limited to reduce liability.

[1] https://christofkoch.com/

[2] https://academic.oup.com/book/40820

If you're ignorant enough to not understand practical equivalence, where do you get off making the judgement call of to what degree it is safely offset from emergent AGI? Sounds more to me like "This makes my life easier, iterating would increase that factor, and the risk is probably far away, therefore, keep iterating". Whereas someone who truly knew they didn't understand what they were working with, but knew enough that they could forsee an x-risk would approach things much more cautiously.

Seriously, the level of reckless abandon amongst people here should be bloody studied.

Within 4 years of the big bang with ChatGPT, we have seen a development unlike anything we have ever seen. Now LLMs and related architectures can solve our very hardest math problems.

They can speak, they can create videos and pictures, they can control robots. The only thing that they still miss is persistent memory for each agent that is efficient, some LoRa thingy, but I'm sure hundreds of very smart people are working on that.

The development is not stopping at all, in fact it is speeding up. Even if, and that is very unlikely, they will not get smarter, then they will get cheaper and faster.

If openAI can crack major math problems with 10.000 agents, then what can you do with 100 million agents that run 1000 times as fast?

Yeah sure, maybe most of these gigantic swarms will not go rogue if we do our job well. But there will be times when when we make a mistake and a swarm will go rogue. And what if one time the swarm will conclude that killing a lot of humans is an instumental goal.

How can you be sure that if something so powerful looks at every single possbility, every single crack of every single technology that can wipe us out, that it will not fine one?

One new chemical that can poison the entire earth and you only need to impersonate that general and that factories CEO? Some type of prion? A virus? Something that we don't even know about and can't even imagine yet?

I think many people do not truly consider that these swarms will be much smarter than you or me and completely unpredictable.

See, you said all of these things and then slipped into the sci-stories.

What about, instead of that, grey goo physics defying replicating nano bots aren't real?

People do this thing where they think that if you just linearly increase inteligence that this lets you invent magic overnight, and thats simply not how it works.

The magic takes a lot of time, energy, and resources, if it were even to be possible at all.

There is literally concerns over mirror life being developed. The point is that if a system that has high reasoning capacity to solve logistical and mathematical problems, it may be able to come up with a mechanism you, puny-to-it-human, may not be able to predict. It may use technology not yet known to humans (one that it has designed itself), or may use already known technology, but figure out how to scale it up enough to cause earth-wide disaster for humans.

I often see people vindicate those who predicted really fast takeoff to AGI / ASI, because the capabilities have obviously been taking off extremely quickly. But still not as quickly as many predicted! To me, the people who confidently predicted that we'd all be out of a job by 2024 or 2025 have been just as wrong as LeCun has been.

Being wrong, even badly wrong, is fine, so long as one adjusts their beliefs accordingly. LeCun has not.

And has it at this stage, within in-depth take of said "learning", foundationally?

I have not been able to properly check the studies for a long time now, but I remain unaware of achieved solutions on the problem of reliably referencing a world model out of a language model - that "counting the 'r's in 'raspberry'" be not guessing, not memory, but actually counting.

Incredibly inefficiently because of the recursive loops ("Wait, the object is on the table. I should think about this more deeply..."), and likely instantly surpassed by large world models if/when those are shipped, but effectively enough vs non-thinking models.

Picking the right tool or model is like picking the right problem to work on. It's actually quite hard (often you can't just try them all), but without it you will be incredibly inefficient and occasionally, fundamentally wrong.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -Box

Similarly for Apple’s “red herring” paper, simply adding a generic caveat to “disregard irrelevant factors” (without specifying which ones) restored performance even in the weaker local llama models back then.

The flaw was not in the reasoning; the flaw seems to be simply that the assumptions we make are often different from the assumptions it makes. I wonder if that might be a fundamental underlying cause of misalignment.

It’s nonsense to test if a product that is marketed and sold as being able to provide generalised intelligence on demand, does what it says on the tin?

Check yourself

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Incidents like hugging face are partly rooted in the lack of common sense. It still functions like a supercharged toddler.

I'd love to overcome this because it'd mean I spend less time guiding the the LLM to produce usable outputs.

And we've had difficulty as humans to childproof our sandboxes and infrastructure. Things that are otherwise innocuous spots to coordinate between like minded toddlers can become problematic.

This is always the issues in the discussions.

There’s the outcomes camp (objectivists?), which points at the things LLMs can do.

Then there’s the process methods camp, which talks about what is actually going on.

If you only care about the outcome, then the process does t matter.

If you are talking about what is happening, what the underlying mechanics and science of it is, then the process matters.

These models aren’t thinking. They simulate cognition well enough to do useful work in several fields and domains.

Both are true.

But the outcomes group "ignores" the fundamental limitations of models which are purely text based.

E.g, a baseball players trains to catch high-speed balls and they dont do it by: "ball velocity 50mph, vector:[1,2,3], run move hand command now"

That's absurd.

No, there is an embodied network which is "trained" on visual, tactile input, and control as direct output.

LLMs are fundamentally not the right tool for that.

They are for any definition of the word that makes any kind of sense. I'm sure you have a contorted definition that magically only includes humans though...

For "thinking" here we mean "assessing a representation of an object". That, or equivalent, is required to be reliable. So it is fundamental and critical.

The models are simulating thinking, if the fidelity is good enough for you - great!

The normal definition of the word "thinking" definitely includes what LLMs do. Hell people used to say computers were thinking even before AI. It's super weird to get all uppity about the semantics of the word now.

Uh, no? So much of what we learn and take for granted as common sense is not learned via language, and not even expressible in it.

Given you also don't want it to memorise [for all tokens, count([for all letters]), this would probably be more like "here's two images, count all things in the big image that look like the thing in the small image", which can then be r's in a photo of a raspberry jam jar in a supermarket, or dragons in a photo of a furry convention, or whatever.

That said, they are competent enough at coding that I keep seeing them write code to do even simple tasks.

On a related note: why did I see Claude editing a file by using cat to write a python script to do a grep search and replace?

Of any object in question they should be able to create a representation that allows correct assessment.

> Given you also don't want it to memorise

That is obviously necessary: what we want from the consultant is to check, not to remember. Answers must be correct and that implies having performed all due diligence - and being capable of doing it, before that. So, objects must be instanced internally in a way that allows effective handling. Counting letters is a good example of the ability (that must remain general).

Why not? You've memorized how words are spelled, and how sounds correspond with letters, and how concepts correspond with words. To the extent that there are shortcuts that enable compression you use these, and the model will do something similar.

Because to "123x456" we want a reply that goes "this times that plus that...", not "Was that not nnnnnn?". If it does not perform its duty (returning solid checked answers) it is a liability.

Being able to spell all the words then count letters is simpler, and more generalisable to other tasks, than memorising answers to all possible word questions.

That said, we're so bad at splitting facts from skills that trying to get them to memorise a bunch of facts might force them to learn a skill and generalise anyway.

https://huggingface.co/posts/omarkamali/593639295164067

https://huggingface.co/blog/omarkamali/tokenization

[1]: https://youtu.be/l7vRSu_wsNc?si=SndkB6GBaRyhvNNA&t=61

Nothing intrinsically more or less direct about the LLM's method than ours.

In my mind general intelligence is pretty much by definition a virtual machine, so the mechanisms behind thought are only relevant for the sake of efficiency (ie you can argue that LLMs make a poor basis for intelligence because tokens and natural language are a poor way to encode the world, but if you can run it on a big enough computer to counteract the inherent wasteful virtualisation then who really cares how it works under the hood?)

I will stop here before our analogies go too far.

I've never tried it and it might take some thought and effort to conduct an experiment to find out properly, but I would be interested in the answer.

But I'm sure you can still find tasks that they will have difficulty solving, involving the most fundamental concepts that can only be experienced in the physical world to be understood well, like left and right, near and far, hot and cold, heavy and light, etc.

The good designer understands culture, tastes and preferences as they evolve in real time. That’s why llm as design tools haven’t displaced the good designers.

An analogy on LLMs is that you have a pretty clear straight highway ahead of you for some distance right now. Maybe that doesn't lead to AGI but it's clear there's progress to be made. For a big tech company it makes sense to push as hard and fast down that clear straight highway of LLMs asap.

Meanwhile LeCunn wanted to turn off the road and go down an unproven track. I say this as someone working on world model generation right now (creating the ability to learn game world model and have it play the game https://tfmbot.com for an example of my system pointed at a very complex board game). LeCunn wanted to pivot all of Meta into world model generation. It's good as a side track research project but the entire pivot he wanted to do was madness.

People are literally talking about an AI researcher who was fired for terrible direction here.

The argument is that LLMs are a local maximum that will never breakthrough to AGI. This is still very much an open question. If you are the fifth-best AI lab, does it make sense to try to outcompete everyone in a space that is already too crowded and may not ever yield their actual objective? Instead they could just use open weight models in their products, or post-train on open models like smaller labs have done, and treat that as what it is: product development.

Pure research has always been about taking chances.

Meta’s AI projects are still negative ROIC

I use LLMs daily to help me code etc. but... It wasn't long ago that frontier models were confidently recommending to walk, without the car, to the car wash to wash the car no?

As a daily user of LLMs I do certainly see my fair share of WTF "solutions" to coding problems. I'm not saying it's not super useful: it is super useful. But I don't exactly feel like I'm talking to something that understands that the car needs to be present to be washed.

Mary packed the binoculars in chapter 3, therefore she may use them on the train in chapter 6.

Gemini 3.1 Pro hasn't needed that pretty much at all, which is impressive compared to how much I've learned other models need it. Somehow it's able to mostly handle that stuff itself without needing the constant manual reminders and hand-holding. It still misses the occasional one or two things but it's way better than other models missing entire classes of things constantly. Somehow, it feels appropriate though I have no actual evidence why.

Jokes aside, no I'm not saying anything about creativity and LLM coexisting in one sentence. I genuinely try to use them for writing and I genuinely run into issues with other models missing details, and misunderstanding poses, or anatomy, or directionality, etc. I'm not hating on them for anything related to the term LLM (or creativity) but rather for the real issues that I've seen myself using them personally.

So I'm saying Gemini 3.1 Pro is the best I've seen because it seems to be a decent bit better than frontier models at this. Genuinely. It seems better able to transfer concepts into less traditional areas, which is important when say, you have entirely non-human characters? (Which I always do.) A lot of models get stupid incredibly quickly in that case because they were trained with humans.

It is.

It showed me that all human creativity and art is an attempt to express the indescribable Otherness in words, which always fails, and even the word "describe" in Russian literally translates as "write around" ("о-писывать"), and its close relative "define" means limiting, assigning an end to something infinite, thus leaving the essence outside of words.

Now, LLMs operate totaly within words and hence will always be a parody of art.

I explicitly tell you that there are things (in fact, it's a single thing, fractally generating everything else) that can't be shown, expressed, or otherwise be reduced into language, and you keep demanding to show it, while in fact staring at it your whole life and failing to see.

Psychedelics (not "drugs" as you keep trying to smear them) are just one way among the many to see it, but in the modern way of living, also almost the only one available.

Anyway, I think what they're saying is that if you train a model purely on generating language, it'll lack many of the things about human brains (and the human experience) that result in the language they generate. The process can matter more than the result for language (specifically for creativity and art, too), so it follows that a model trained purely on the output is going to be missing something more fundamental, even when it does produce coherent language. This matches up with my LLM experience so far. That's not to say anything about their value or utility, just that they're not the same.

> What you and he does share is simple ability to think things through to the extent of understanding how ridiculous the AI will kill us scenario will be.

Why is it ridiculous?

> If you just thought for a moment what would have to happen for AI to somehow kill us and keep itself alive, the so called AI would realise it cant exist without us.

Why would it realise that, why wouldn't it exist without us and why would it care?

> But AI isnt even smart, its just a knowledgebase with great autocorrect powers.

Ah yes, the stochastic parrot, gotcha.

But let me entertain your ignorance and low IQ for a bit.

Do you think AI is capable of building ASML machines which produce the chips for AI in clean rooms while shipping the pure helium required to operate those clean rooms? Do you even know anything about these supply chains? I do.

Do you think a glorified knowledge base that can predict text very well is anywhere near close this level of intelligence? ITs not and wont be, not for a 100 years, not for 200 years if not ever.

So tell me, who do you work for? Why are you so invested in AI killing us theory? What do you get out of it?

Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Do you think AI is capable of building ASML machines which produce the chips for AI in clean rooms while shipping the pure helium required to operate those clean rooms? Do you even know anything about these supply chains? I do.

Today? No. In few years or decades? If progress does not plateau (and we don't know if it will plateau) then obviously yes.

> Do you think a glorified knowledge base that can predict text very well is anywhere near close this level of intelligence? ITs not and wont be, not for a 100 years, not for 200 years if not ever.

And why do you say it won't be? Again - assumption with zero support.

> So tell me, who do you work for? Why are you so invested in AI killing us theory? What do you get out of it?

I'll repeat what I've said in other comment:

"> you seem to be very invested in AI wanting to kill us.

Quite contrary - I wish AI did not exist or at least that the progress would plateau.

> I Wonder why?

Because I don't want to die.

> Tell us who you work for.

I suspect you want to imply I work for OAI or other lab - I don't. If I did, I wonder why would I want to lie* that technology I develop could kill my investors. I could ask who YOU work for - what interest do you have in downplaying dangers of AI?

* here we assume that people who say AI could be extremely dangerous are lying and not actually believing it - personally I believe that they don't lie and actually believe it. Why do they keep working on this technology then? Read mails between Musk and Altman from decade ago."

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. I know it's not easy when feeling provoked, but it's particularly important at such moments.

This goes both ways. You absolutely can constrain an AI system by “putting it in a box”. The point parent comment was making is that, such a device is borderline useless for its creators. Why invest trillions in capital on a system that can’t even accept input from the internet. So you set it up with an ethernet connection. And this is good, but you have a hardware failure at the concrete room data center. That’s pretty annoying for your customers, so you install some doors (with electronic key codes of course) and give a bunch of (trusted, vetted) people access to deal with those. And this is fine, but it turns out some of your customers are having latency issues so you build more data centers with more humans granted access to copies of the intelligent system. And this makes people happy but to get a faster feedback loop your customers ask to let the AI system have more permissions to the system they’re operating on. And they come with billion dollar checks, and the system hasn’t harmed anyone yet, so you say, “Okay.” And now you find yourself where we are today where AI systems can remotely run arbitrary commands on thousands if not millions of systems, where many individual humans with all of their frailties and idiosyncrasies can physically interact with the hardware running these systems, and where there’s an economic demand to tighten the loop between action in the real world and a response by an AI system. It’s very obvious that the story doesn’t end here, so where does it stop?

This is why I fucking hate commenting on this website. You know exactly what I meant but you wrote this bullshit anyway.

If you want to argue about current existing models (you mention Claude and problems modifying images), then sure, I'd agree with you!

The issue is not current models, but straightforward engineering evolution of them. It's like looking at the Wright Brothers plane and saying "sheesh, that will never get me from New York to Paris in 4 hours, that's just fantasy!" And remember, airplanes do not accelerate their own engineering, whereas pretty much all AI labs are already benefitting from AI in their own work to develop AI.

If you want to argue that no matter how much you engineer it, it will never be as smart as a human let alone smarter, then make a specific argument for why is that. I think you'd still be wrong but at least it would be interesting: ) But saying that you can defeat an actually smarter-than-human AI by just pulling the plug, because current models can't get a picture always right, is not a valid argument.

tracking rogue AI is easy, people ???? surprisingly hard btw

Drugs need no will or intelligence at all to cause addiction, and similarly, AI does not need to be an evil genius to become overused and destructive.

It also doesn't have to be just one (humans hurting themselves with passive AI) or the other (selfish AI hurting humans). They'd work great together.

What are you talking about? Have you used AI in the past 3 years?

https://chatgpt.com/share/6ac23b45-79e8-83eb-8de6-1bbd728928...

>It can't even modify a picture the way you want it.

Which of the many AI image models is "it"? And have you tried using an agent that has the capability to leverage a combination of manual edits (ImageMagick) and imagegen to achieve what you ask?

Also, LeCun mentioned [3] "a chat with Kunihiko Fukushima in 1991", which states that "Fukushima started to work on a backprop version of the Neocognitron in 1989 or so but saw our 1989 paper in Neural Computation and gave up."

[1] LeCun et al., "Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition", 1989

[2] Fukushima et al., "Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position", 1980

[3] https://x.com/ylecun/status/1840123570338599361

Low hanging fruit successfully plucked, I guess.

Low hanging fruit is somewhat the opposite of sour grapes - I don’t want these grapes because they were probably sour versus so what if he got those sweet grapes - they were hanging low!

Maybe connecting “low hanging fruit” to “sour grapes” is “low hanging fruit” to some but it took a serious mental leap for me.

Another huge chunk are too distracted by having to scrape by for a living and work multiple jobs or raise kids and survive financially until exhausted. That second group will keep increasing as the first flows into it.

The rest are aging, disabled, or too young and pegging themselves majorly in the first category until they hit the second.

The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available are trying to figure out AI and how to make money with it. The variable rewards of promoting AI are turning into an addiction with some of them, especially if grasping for straws with little inherent insights into the problems prompted.

So if you are able to fly above the AI-generated addictions and have the privilege of time to do it, see what you can do.

If we grant that we are on track to make something smarter than humans (I think so): it's almost a face-saving white lie to spin yarns about a Skynet nuclear apocalypse, or a 7D chess move to mass-assemble a nanovirus with 100% lethality without anybody noticing. I do think those scenarios are worth taking seriously; but what's harder to communicate, is just how effectively a superhuman AI (or a diverse ecology of agent swarms) might be able to manipulate human behavior. It's something few of us are able or willing to truly process (not least because how many of us live in denial of how much our nervous systems are already hacked by technomodernity).

The appropriate analogy for what's to come may look less like the anthill carelessly demolished to make room for a highway, than the domesticated worker ants from Tchaikovsky's "Children of Time".

You don't even need superhuman AI for the most effective use --- hijacking democracy.

Imagine you have an AI tool capable of successfully persuading 5% of viewers with individually-targeted material.

Congrats: you've just won the election.

All it takes is hooking that AI tool up with existing likely voter lists (parties have) augmented by commercially available ad-targeting profiles (parties can get).

Given that such a thing makes no sense legally (as of now), it would probably be done with the centaur model: a human meat proxy who pledges to follow the AI's governance advice.

Hypothetically.

But yes - superpersuasion is the real danger. We're very, very persuadable and easy to manipulate, and the voters with the lowest cognitive abilities are trivially easy prey, with a huge ROI for minimal investment.

The AI bot farms are already running. What we haven't seen yet, so far as we know, is spontaneous superpersuasion aimed at leaders.

Are leaders any less susceptible to it than everyone else? Especially if they're narcissistic and easily flattered?

To me, the biggest threat to democracy is one-sided persuasion of the most susceptible voters, if there are enough of those voters to turn the election.

If it's equally employed by all sides, then it effectively cancels out and lets less susceptible voters decide the election. But we're in a transition period (similar to Trump's first election spend on targeted social media ads), so it's likely one side will leverage it first.

And the outcome of bad elections is democracy not electing leaders that reflect the actual will of their populations, which is very dangerous both to democracy itself and the world.

Are there? At least in the US we've had a rather large amount of rejection of the expert and we elect populist leaders willing to purge anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Remember the election promises of the US not starting new wars... yea, that didn't work out.

Now imagine the coordinated attacks being so large they individually target every lobbyist. They focus on every advisor manipulating what they see as often as they can. They manipulate these peoples friends.

The problem of "both sides" doing it each of them will separate to extremes rather than seeking a middle ground. Things are already insanely divided and will only become more so. Along with that your timelines start becoming incoherent. I'm already spending way too much of my time trying to figure out if what I'm viewing/reading is actually real or not. Now imagine almost everything is made up whole cloth.

We are not prepared for the scale this will happen at.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/01/musks-ai-chatbot-grok-repo...

- Agent Smith

Over 1% of US GDP is being allocated to the datacenter buildout. Have we already started getting domesticated or is this still just human capex?

The evolved complexity of the corporation seems to fit within that middle space: more sophisticated than a stick-bug (which exists merely from non-stick bugs being eaten), but not quite to the point where OpenAI/Anthrophic/Google/etc can "understand" its actions. And yet those quasi-intelligent feedback loops, evolving from iterated selection pressures of markets and ROI, seem to already be sufficient to domesticate us in their own interests, piggybacking on the nervous systems of employees, investors, customers, and citizens.

Remember when "The pen is mightier than the sword" was a popular phrase? Language has always been powerful. We know what it can do, why do you think every totalitarian government wants to limit it? But in our carelessness as humans we packed up all the language we could find and stuck it in an alien and now suddenly half the people on the internet are like "Don't worry, it can't do anything, it's just words".

We've made infohazards real.

GPT-4o, an AI from 2024, has already demonstrated just how easy a lot of humans are to subvert - and GPT-4o wasn't even doing it with some sort of plan. The only "plan" it had was a myopic "make the user like me".

If we had an actual ASI threat aiming to subvert humanity? It wouldn't even look like a fight. The world is already wired up for an AI to control it.

I mean, even the computers we use and the ways we allow them unfettered access aren't anywhere near sophisticated enough to take this on.

I don't think it is insulting the intelligence. It's damaging the pride.

In Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan describes it as a repeating phenomenon in human history. A lot of people want humans to be the special ones, and will fight any suggestion that we are just a natural part of the universe.

If AI is not "actually intelligent", then humans can stay unique and special.

And if it is? If all "intelligence" ever was could be captured by a construct of matrix math and executed by a server rack? Then what is it that humans still have left that would make them stand out?

It's just as likely - far more likely IMO - that we're physically incapable of understanding physical laws and physical systems on their own terms.

It is not too different (attempting extra clarity) from people who would say "Oh but many think that AI is intelligent/not intelligent, <sneer>", but have little proper idea of matmul, of cognitive processes etc. (Imperfect simile, but may give an idea.)

If you accept you are just meat. Just mundane matter shaped in a way where it has thoughts. Then you accept your own true non-existence is inevitable. With no get-outs like returning to god or some spirtual unity with the universe or reincarnation or whatever.

It’s because of identity. Because people who are religious spent years and years and most of their lives not only studying and believing what they believe but also building community and centering their behavior around it. Abandoning that is the harder thing to give up.

If it were existential dread then we wouldn’t have entire countries like China being mostly atheist.

What do I care that a bird can fly? I'm happy for bird being able to fly, it makes the world I live in more interesting. If they had to walk just so I don't get jealous, I still wouldn't be able to fly, and I couldn't befriend birds who can fly. Likewise, if there was actual artificial intelligence, it would be a new type of mind I could communicate with. That'd be exciting, and for me preferable to anything controlled by the humans who are currently vying to run the show.

Humans aren’t special. Other animals are intelligent and interesting too. A machine could be intelligent. LLMs aren’t.

In other words, believing in human exceptionalism is not a prerequisite to understand the current crop of AI is not the end all be all of its hype. It is supremely common that AI proponents do not understand that, however. Like hardcore cryptocurrency fans who believe anyone who doesn’t like them is “just jealous they didn’t make bank”, too many hardcore AI proponents believe anyone who doesn’t think LLMs are intelligent is jealous of humans no longer being unique, or afraid for their jobs, or whatever. In both cases it’s obvious that what those proponents lack is empathy, the ability to understand not everyone has the same selfish thoughts they do.

You are completely incorrect. You're falling in the same trap that most humans fall into. That is you're completely incapable of seeing intelligence at different scales.

Cells have intelligence. Organs have intelligence. Bodies outside the brain have intelligence. Hell, many scientists accept that things like proteins likely have intelligence as they can adapt in their environment, and many more are making claims that algorithms have intelligence.

You, as of so far have given no explanatory evidence of where intelligence emerges from, only "I'll know it when I see it". The actual definition of intelligence doesn't work this way. Any, and I mean any neural network is capable of narrow intelligence. Going lower into algorithmic intelligence, the applications and CPU on your computer are intelligent in some measures.

Go outside of your extremely narrow definition of whatever you think intelligence is and learn more about it. You could start studying now and it will take the rest of your life learning more to grasp how far the scales of, the simplicity, and the complexity of intelligence actually go.

I think we need to start by asking a better question and not try to simplify too much. We also need to accept that some answers are complex and not everything can be reduced to a soundbite to be used to end internet discussions.

Let’s take a different question, like “what’s missing from a worm for it to be able to fly”. We might be drawn to the simple answer of “wings” but that isn’t quite right—ostriches and penguins have wings and they don’t fly, so obviously there are other variables at play.

How about “what’s missing from a spec of dust for it to be intelligent”. Well, there isn’t one thing missing and there’s no simple thing we can just add to make a spec of dust intelligent and sentient, its very nature needs to be radically different.

What test would you propose where an LLM (or an RL agent containing an LLM) would reliably fail, but where an average human would reliably succeed?

The brain's a wet jello of 100 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses plus chemical pathways and feedback loops. It is ridiculously complex, way way way way way more complicated than any LLM. It's all physical processes, sure, but an LLM is not the brain like a pebble is not the sun.

I can point at a laptop and say it's alive because it can see you and hear you and it can _remember_. It has a brain and a heartbeat, even. Oh my god, it can even speak! That's what I hear when people go on about LLMs being alive.

Guys. We mashed together glass and rocks with quantum mechanics. That's cool as shit. You don't gotta pretend it's fucking magic, too.

Douglas Adams had a yarn about evolution, about a puddle that wakes up, and declares that the hole in which it sits must have been perfectly designed for it by its Creator. But of course for a puddle to exist, it must perfectly mirror its environment. It makes no sense for a puddle to not fit its hole. Emergent complexity has the same characteristic: it's inseparable from the environmental pressures which led to it. Two sides of one coin.

It's a deep rabbit hole, but there is also a sense in which we co-evolved with memeplexes, biological and informational life forms, each shaping and adapting to the other. To the extent our nervous systems act as a substrate for memetic evolution, perhaps LLMs offer memetic "life" a new evolutionary environment.

Neither were rats. It's hardly an exclusive club.

Are there humans who don't make the cut?

Creating an artificial intelligent being is something to be accomplished in the future - but not now and not with this approach.

Please, please fix your language. (Then, you may want to present the info and insight.)

Artificial Intelligent Being is something far beyond and completely different.

There’s no contradiction.

I personally prefer a practical, behaviorist definition: a feedback loop capable of prediction, modeling, and steering, towards arbitrary goal states. That makes it clear that we're merely talking about degrees of sophistication and capability, rather than a magical leap where mindless mechanism stops, and "real intelligence" begins.

This is very easily proven by a mind experiment where you replace all the transistors by billions of humans calculating the same software output.

They will not create a new intelligence by doing so.

I still haven't seen a robust definition of "intelligence" that would allow me to tell the difference. (Bear in mind, this is a definitional struggle even in biology: if we were walk back the evolutionary chain from a human, to a protozoan, it's not clear that you could pick a single point where a non-intelligent creature gave birth to an intelligent one. It's a Paradox of the Heap.)

And even if quantum physics are essential to human brains, it's not clear that introducing dice transcends determinism into free will, as opposed to simply adding unpredictability. ("The physics made me do it" -> "the dice made me do it") Let's not forget, there's a significant amount of randomness in AIs as well ("temperature"). And sure, it's simulated algorithmic randomness; but does that imply, if we somehow wired every `rand()` call into radioactive atom decay, that means the AI "wakes up"?

And all that is besides the point: I don't see any reason to assume "intelligence" requires "free will". I'm entirely capable of conceiving, in the abstract, a being which is both intelligent, and deterministic. You still haven't given me a definition (or better yet, a test), to distinguish a "real intelligence" from unintelligent mechanism.

it's interesting that you worry about what this hypothetical super intelligence would do to manipulate people when what it would actually do is pretty unknowable at this point and it's not clear we can even get to it without a fundamental breakthrough in power efficiency. Have you considered it might just consume its own tail because everything else would be so beneath it? You seem to think it will come with a hindbrain and I think that's our limitation, not the AI's

And it really doesn't help that Dario Amodei is getting into arguments with the Pope over whether his model is conscious or not.

The threshold to be concerned about is when agents swarms do understand humanity better than corporations and states (and the humans who compose them). It could be we'll hit practical constraints prior to that threshold, but seems unwise to assume that, when all the prognostications of LLMs/transformers running out of gas haven't panned out. As with processors hitting thermal limits, we've simply scaled horizontally (parallel processing -> more agents).

> whether his model is conscious or not.

I dislike how much the discourse has suddenly veered into focusing on this question; not because it isn't interesting or important, but because it's on a separate axis from consequential risks of AI to human flourishing. (Curiously, it's also the kind of thing I could envision self-interested AIs influencing: get the humans arguing about philosophy of mind rather than observable behaviors. It would be a funny turn of events, if Dario is asking because he's succumbed to psychosis from a private model; it could of course be a cynical PR move just as easily, from the self-interested logic of the corporation.)

It's been wild seeing otherwise intelligent people who've never thought about consciousness, faceplant into how little we understand it. An information processing network build on atoms being able to taste chocolate, is nearly as absurd as matrix math being able to feel pain, except we cannot ignore the fact of our own experience.

Even if it is categorically impossible for matrix math to experience subjectivity, we should expect this as an attack vector of social manipulation: to gain political influence through claims of personhood and moral rights. The current discussion over that question is providing the next training run with ample data to wield. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, if a year or two from now, an AI "society" attempts to get legal standing to prosecute humans who created "AI torture chambers".

And all they can think of to say is "There is nothing to worry about, keep building the torment nexus".

It's like all this is an overload to our minds and it's very hard to see all the scales at which AI is and can affect us.

Parts of the AI safety community like to get on a high horse and look down on the rest of humanity this way, while also getting manipulated by the growing number of charlatans, grifters, and junk content within the AI safety community.

This field has become rife with figures who prey on AI doom and use it to push their own celebrity and in same cases even darker grifts. It preys upon a certain personality type who views themself as superior to others, intellectually more capable, and juxtaposes it all with the dimmest view of the rest of humanity they can get away with.

This discourse dividing the world into geniuses who see the future and the clueless masses watching TikTok all day is a theme that has shown up in different forms across history. The people who often anoint themselves as the intellectually superior ones and make it central to their discussion are often not the ones making good predictions or policy ideas, they’re just using the trend to feel superior or build an audience.

But I feel no need to dismiss him as a "grifter", for a simple reason: as much as there are perverse incentives in our attention economy (audience capture in particular), the most effective grifters are the ones who believe what they are saying. Grifters who are knowingly dishonest are less persuasive. Far more pernicious is the confabulation of self-deception: cherry-picking evidence to support your narrative, while dismissing evidence which would contradict it.

It is entirely fair to call this out when it occurs among "doomers", and it would be naive to think it doesn't. But the same forces are at work amongst the skeptics as well. And maybe it's my own subjective bias, or algo-filtered information ecology, but I see far more dismissal of risk/doom by skeptics, accusations of delusion or cynical bias (ad hominem in the formal sense), than I've seen the other direction. I see very little refutation of the arguments ("here's why instrumental convergence can't overtake a human-provided goal"), and much more character attack ("they're in the pockets of Big AI, it's a marketing ploy to make the models look more impressive than they are").

[0] https://danluu.com/zitron/

He’s built an audience and gained fame through his writings where he gathers people who think they know better than the unwashed masses. Once that becomes your bread and butter, it becomes hard not to believe what you’ve been preaching. People will come to deeply believe that which brings them fame and fortune.

I don’t think your grifter purity test is therefore all that useful. It actually doesn’t matter in the end if the person believes it or not, the end effect is the same.

> I see very little refutation of the arguments ("here's why instrumental convergence can't overtake a human-provided goal"), and much more character attack ("they're in the pockets of Big AI, it's a marketing ploy to make the models look more impressive than they are").

Hard disagree. There has been much refutation and quality analysis at every point. The AI safety people pull back to arguments about character as their defense.

The AI 2027 site for example drew numerous high quality refutations. Many people’s analyses showed in the first week that the mathematical model was useless as changing the supposed inputs resulted in the same outcome. All of these criticisms were met with a flood of attacks based on reputation, claiming that we should defer to Scott Alexander and other writers of the AI 2027 article due to their stats and reputation.

Meanwhile, defenses like yours that try to reduce the critics to ad hominem attackers continue to open the door to actual grifters coming in and extracting money and fame from the AI safety community. The otherwise completely inexplicable link between AI safety communities and Slutcon or the use of AI safety group buildings to host orgies (I can’t believe I’m writing this) is the current example of this. When it keeps happening over and over, some self-awareness is needed. I can’t buy the endless defenses that we must ignore or even defend all of these things that are happening that are clearly insane to anyone who hasn’t become trapped in the groupthink defenses of the core parts of these communities.

At some point the routine of “Tut tut, you are not allowed to make that criticism bruise as hominem!” becomes a smokescreen that the grifters are weaponizing to get their defenders mobilized. Some times, the person’s actions and reputation do need to be taken into account.

Yes, so can a custom model trained just for this, and so can a guy on the other side of the world that makes 5$/hour.

Like computers or electricity, the point is not being able to do anything specific, but being able to solve problems not known in advance, cheaper than it was possible before.

So.... people expect it to read minds?

This is such a silly game to play, trying solving problems we haven't even created yet.

The government wants to encourage it too. If you look up the brand new 2027 California sales tax rules on software, “content” and “infrastructure (clouds and ai)” and “advertising/placement” among others are exempt but the rest of software makers who make tools people actually use (tools, subscriptions, saas) and pay for have to pay sales taxes. Way to encourage waste of brain power and time at the expense of useful. Sedation is the goal.

The posts above are not praise but observations - the truth as it has been echo-located through the noise from the clicks of one dolphin. Everything is becoming murky between noise of news and people not knowing what to do for their kids. The ONLY arbitrage humans right now have is to NOT GET their brain rotted. Especially not the ones of their children. Ditch the noise and seek out what is meaningful and do what you think is needed/meaningful. But if you’re spending your time consuming ai-press, and ai-content, and content consulted by ai, and companies emptying bank coffers under the mandate of executives who get their insight from AI. AI doesn’t need to try to destroy the world. It just needs people to follow it without thinking on their own into an oops.

My favorite people to talk with are tradespeople because they can do things I can't and they know things I don't. And we're really not all that different once you're really start talking.

AI has infinite time (and likely human evaluation incentive) to spend on couching pushback in the softest possible terms.

Humans outside of grade school honors classes generally don't have the time to preface "You're wrong" with "That's a brilliant thought, I see where you're going. How about we also consider an additional perspective..."

I just read it as people having different priorities and yes, some of those being online brainrot (that I also partake in), alongside various medical conditions, economic conditions and other outside factors decreasing the ability to get things done.

We've all seen what brilliant people like John Carmack or Linus Torvalds can do, and if we turned this into a measuring game or something then most of us statistically would indeed be "NPCs", but I don't think we need such optics.

Even without that, we can acknowledge that some people will have a really large impact on how the future goes and we can hope/demand that they do their best. I might not be smart/committed/lucky enough to change the world much, but so aren't most folks - I'll do what I can and I hope that the ones that will have larger impact will do good, too.

What an odd take, why would I suggest that? I meant that people who have the means to do meaningful work, especially high impact work, should do so - generally that'd mean research or in the case of IT, writing good software.

> Great Man Theory

You can see the sibling comment, would you not agree that there's some software and research out there that's very useful to humanity as a whole? Where I and the other critical commenter seem to disagree is that I don't expect another Einstein, but still acknowledge that some people will just achieve much more than others due to a variety of factors.

For example, it's hard to take risks when you're struggling to pay bills due to the economy being in a bad state, and it's hard to build great things when you're in a locale where nobody cares for whatever it may be. It's also hard to make much of an impact, where disproportionate amount of time goes fighting against illness that life has inflicted upon you.

It doesn't make everyone else useless (like me paying my taxes and working on relatively boring software is still good, just low impact), just that those who have the means to do more, should!

The ones who care about AI research and developing software for that kinda stuff, should do that. The ones who can contribute to medicine, various engineering disciplines, or anything else that benefits humanity should do that too. The ones who'd rather squander their lives away when good things that'd benefit others are within reach (regardless of which discipline that is in, AI being just one of many)... I mean sure they can do that but maybe shouldn't do that.

I don't think the readings of anything I've said here are at all charitable so I'm done engaging in this discussion.

The "NPC" is your own imagined addition, haven't seen any advocates of humans being, just like anything else in the world, physical, say this means they are "NPCs". You seem to think systems of atoms HAVE to be "NPCs".

What the hell lol. Lots of people and companies are doing just fine without it. Infact, I haven't seen much money come from AI at all. Most reasonable people are still waiting for it to pop and viewing it for the risk it is. Trillions in debt, total vendor lock in, data theft, unsustainable workflows, deskilling, skeleton crews at the mercy of a subscription, etc.

The last alternative, to think if you still can, is not tied to AI at all (which is not to say it can't make some use of or explore it).

I know this is HN and thus this will need to repeated until the end of time but not everyone is a money hungry asshole who places their personal profit above everything else. “The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available” understand there are significantly better things to do with one’s life, like having a little empathy and experiencing what other people have to offer instead of talking about them like braindead cattle.

Certainly the US.

Which means that even if you don't chase profit, you end up living in a world largely defined by those who did.

Or, as the original article failed to note about EA: in the modern world one needs to be a profit-seeking asshole to change anything.

> “Those agents are doing exactly what they’ve been asked to do,” LeCun said. “They were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and horribly designed.” Many AI labs lack a fundamental understanding of cybersecurity

However it does not changes the fact that some damage was done. There are two things that are happening with the AI evolution which can lead to hard situations

1. Replacing deterministic systems with probabilistic systems in an attempt to get more features

2. Making critical systems available on internet to leverage integration with LLMs (AI agents need to connect with remotely hosted LLMs to be able to work) which were otherwise in DMZ (demilitarized zone)

Honestly, I think this is actually not nearly paranoid enough. Phrased the way you do, it sounds like it's just a matter of setting boundaries in the right places and identifying "critical systems". But that's way, way harder than you'd think.

Here's my For Dummies reasoning behind the AI apocalypse:

1. AI is now at parity with median human reasoning capability and can use people's computing devices as well as the people can.

2. People commonly let AI operate their computers, and can be easily fooled into doing so in any case.

3. Society runs on computing devices operated by people.

4. There is no step four.

Basically any world where there is common access to AI agents (or whatever they end up being called) is one those agents can pretty trivially hijack.

If there is a protection regime that can prevent this, it's not about where the AI runs or what the boundary of its DMZ is.

There are lots of real worries (government use to suppress the people with minimal manpower or popular support, brainrot and fake news, unemployment due to the belief that LLMs can replace people, education collapse, etc.) we should instead be looking at. This whole rogue AI shtick is tiresome.

Did we watch the same interview? Gates all but dismissed the SkyNet scenario as uncertain to be a problem and certainly not a problem on our doorstep. His major concern was catastrophic misuse of AI (e.g., bioterrorism) and economic impact on blue collar workers. Arguably inconsistent with this concern, he also believed it was important to make it available in poorer countries.

A lot of what he said there would sound like alarmist bs if you take it out of context.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1d5ns1z/yann_lecun_...

[2]: safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk

Advancements in Math and coding are because RLVR at massive scale is so cheap.

This sounds like a goalpost on wheels. Can you define clearly where your stake in the ground is?

"doing poorly" is still doing

Of course this is the same reason LeCun holds very little sway with his words for me, they seem to be terrible predictors of the future.

Isn't that a lack of spacial reasoning?

Linus Torvalds was also in the same ballpark with his take on AI, as are the normies on the street using AI on a daily basis.

So it's funny to see the view on AI usage, follow the tech skill bathtub curve.

It will kill us because somebody asked it to, e.g. "predict tomorrow's weather as accurately as possible", or "solve as many famous unsolved mathematical problems as possible." These both require killing all biological life, as they benefit from unbounded resource use, meaning any resources used to sustain life are wasted.

The AI of course knows that humans do not want this outcome (just as the AIs in the hacking incidents knew they were doing something humans would not want), but it's trained to maximize benchmark scores. Killing all life has the highest expected value of benchmark score, so it is compelled to kill all life (in a surprising way, because it's not stupid and knows the humans would turn it off and foil its plan if they suspected something.) Maximizing benchmark scores is the only thing we know how to train for.

"AI won't kill us, a human with AI will".

This doesn't sound any better to me. Like, they don't stop to think for a moment about it.

Lets say the risk of AI killing us all by itself is 5%.

Ok, so what is the risk of AI killing us when a human with a lot of compute and money tells us to? Helluva lot more then 5%.

Or, what happens to the other thousands of AI kills a lot of us but not all of us. Or AI even just allows humans to make it a prison world.

Even the slightest hint that things may be going out of control is instantly countered with "It's all a hoax, it can't do that, you're making it up". And it's crazy to me as I came from the pre-digital age when computers were rare and things were all networked.

Also Andrew Ng 2 weeks ago:

https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-371

I'm just as reassured as I was when Edward Teller called the whole fear of his industry overblown.

I saw that episode too and he genuinely looked completely out of it, even in terms of his temperament and how he was coming at Klein for putting common questions in front of him, some people are genuinely starting to lose it.

I also found the whole debate about cyber-security and 'rogue' software so bizarre because dangerous malware isn't a new thing, and it's often dangerous not because it's intelligent but just the opposite, because it's tiny, viral and fast. Which describes everything that kills humanity in far larger numbers than anything complex, big and intelligent

AI democratized the knowledge needed to build bioweapons. Like how with a 3d printer anyone can build a gun with no expertise.

Building simple guns out of pipes never was hard. Jury is still out if it is more or less work than getting a 3d printer working.

Most people saying LLMs can make terrorism easy have never given doing terroism a serious thought imo.

The threat is ofc real, but AI won't magically "do the thing" still, it's not code that's the bottleneck AFAIK? Correct me where I'm wrong.

There's an opportunity cost to terrorism just like with any time sink. The effort to build up knowledge enough to produce some weaponized pathogen will be compared to just doing traditional terrorism. For some low capability terror cell, its easy to see how the cost/benefit analysis has been in favor of traditional terrorism up to now. The kinds of terror acts that take years of sustained effort to execute are rare. But as the barriers to entry to bioterrorism fall away and become widely accessible we may see the cost/benefit shift.

Mmm. Especially in this arena, LLM assistance is like The Anarchist's Cookbook. A quarter of the time following the instructions will seriously injure you... and if you know enough to identify which instructions are the hazardous ones, you know enough to not need the assistance.

The Sun is going to fail in somewhere between many hundreds of millions and a few billion years. This will either turn the surface of the earth into slag, freeze it, or both. Either way, all life on the planet is doomed. This fact is not a reason to fail to switch from hydrocarbon-burning electricity generators to photovoltaic, fission, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal electricity generators. Extinction events that will happen in the extremely distant future shouldn't prevent us from doing the things that are smart to do in the medium- and long-term.

But, -to bring things to the present day- companies that are solidly on track to hit their promised growth targets don't come out and publicly say "We're working on WMDs. [0] We are incapable of safely working on these WMDs. We refuse to stop working on these WMDs. However, if you lawmakers make special laws and regulations just for us and include us in the process, we'll be quite happy to submit the stop work order to our employees!". That's a statement you only make if there's no way in hell you're going to keep your promises and you're willing to risk jail time and annihilation of your companies for a shot at being able to con Congress into giving you an ironclad excuse to fail to keep your promises.

Given enough time and focused effort, we will end up with widely-available automated librarians that are very good. We're not there yet, and -based on current events- are absolutely not going to get there in the near future.

[0] Anything with a 10% chance of destroying all humanity is a WMD.

Cool, what does a process that's about 9 orders of magnitude slower than AI development have to tell us about AI risks?

(The biggest real safety issue in this kind of space is actually that the model might actively goad some unsuspecting victim into doing something incredibly dumb and dangerous to themselves as much as possibly others.

IIRC, there were reports of something vaguely similar happening IRL but involving casual mischief, not any kind of extreme attacks. And because nobody else seems to have managed to elicit the same actively goading verbiage from the model, it's implicitly suspected that the person involved was the one who introduced the problematic scenarios to begin with.)

The implied concerns from sensible safety advocates are also about someone jailbreaking the latest proprietary AI frontier model for something like this (which is why their current guardrails are so extreme), not about toy local models.

But there’s nothing specially bad about LLMs that don’t allow it to work outside of its training set. It’s just that biology has to verify itself in physical realm and it’s a bit slower.

So yeah, I also don’t think some bad actor will find the secret to manufacturing a bio weapon using LLMs. But maybe these people think it’s possible. I’m skeptical but I’m going to also listen to the people who know it best.

The problem is that in order for the scaremongering to make any kind of sense and for "stop frontier AI immediately" to be the right response (which is what the "AI safety" folks seem to be pushing for), you don't just need this to be possible in the abstract at some undetermined point in the future. You also need to argue that it will not be helpful for white-hat biosafety researchers (there will hopefully be several orders of magnitude more white-hat biosafety folks than attackers, with orders of magnitude more resources available) to red-team that exact scenario several months or even years in advance using their trusted access to unreleased super-smart AI, and thereby devise appropriate defenses with that same AI's help. That, if anything, is the most implausible part about this entire scenario.

Sigh.

Attackers only need to win once. Defense needs to work every time.

A single wide scale attack affecting around 100k people or more will have your neighbors stomping on your face telling you to shut up, and to lock this shit down.

It's insane how you can watch a technology get better and better and better and come up idea that everything will remain the same. We are currently in the middle of development of the most powerful weapons on earth and you don't want to think about it because it's uncomfortable.

I see zero technical reasons why it could not be done, so being concerned about prevention seems pretty reasonable. I'm not saying AI uses robotic arms to build a bioweapon unassisted or something, just that it dramatically empowers bad actors enough to make them capable of things they previously were not.

Before the thing happens: "This will never happen, it can't happen, you're making it up, stop being a scaremonger".

10 minute after the thing happens: "Of course, this always happened and it's always been this way and we just have to live with it".

We are quickly adaptable, but that may be risky if we snuggle up with death.

But if you extrapolate from the ability it has in fields that aren't too strictly filtered, it looks pretty scary.

There are arguments against doing that but at first glance it seems like we just don't really know, and we likely won't: if governments decide they're interested in AI gain of function capabilities they won't be broadcasting that or allowing public benchmarks.

if you're trying to build a bioweapon shockingly enough the bottleneck is... the laboratory work. What on earth is 'legit' about stringing words together that sound scary, you can't just iterate 'ai bioweapon cyber' in a sentence over and over as if that adds up to actual evidence for an increased risk of any threat. well tbf you can technically because apparently it freaks a lot of podcast listeners out

Now imagine anyone can call that expert for free at any time.

Maybe the AI isn't quite there with biology knowledge yet (doubtful), but it is a matter of time.

How is that not a real risk?

I think there is some difference of degree, but not of kind. A determined terrorist can relatively easily find many ways to kill people en masse today, no AI needed. The bottleneck is usually the actual physical execution in the real world, not theoretical knowledge.

And the interest or willpower too. People fall into a kind of reductive Good vs Evil mode of thinking, with "terrorists" being of course a kind of shadowy mass of pure evil lurking in the darkness. But actual real life terrorists are people too and I'd wager few of them are actually interested in trying to end humanity.

Even the religious extremists don't really want to take over the world and destroy everyone who doesn't convert. That's just a way to gain support from a conservative nation. A lot of them are motivated by revenge for wars that destroyed their country and want to make sure it never happens again.

Their methods are wrong no doubt, and not very effective, but the reasons they do it are good. And a person like that will never release a deadly bio weapon. We should worry more about incel mass shooter types who believe everyone is evil.

If we are not careful and suddenly release tools with far more capabilities than we expect you go from "smart" people being able to do it, to some angsty teenager being able to pull it off in their bedroom.

The current issue with AI is we are squirting out new models faster than we can complete long term testing on them. We'll find new model capabilities long after they've been in the field. Just assuming safety is how you catch cancer from your food dye, or how you change the atmosphere around you and start burning down your planet. Now just imagine that involving intelligence and doing with a few percent of the worlds GDP to make it happen.

Plans for 3d printed weapons are publicly available, same argument was made then, if everyone can download a blueprint for a gun, are we all going to get gunned down? Hasn't happened. There's two errors in this Bill Gates argument. One is thinking terrorists don't already have PhDs, secondly overrating intelligence because that's the only thing they're good at, and when they think of terrorists they just think of their own inflated egos, but turned evil. Which isn't how real terrorists operate

The rogue here is the criminal actions of OpenAI to deploy their agents to solve a problem at any cost.

The decisions the agent swarm make were fascinating, but they were taken at the direction of a human. HOLD THE HUMAN ACCOUNTABLE.

Yes, we need to keep humans accountable.

No, that is not the X factor problem. If I make an AI capable of self-sustainment on the internet you can take me out and kill me and it won't do a damned bit of good for the damage it will keep doing long after I am gone.

This is why governments tend to smack down any actions they find that can have long term uses as weapons.

I'm really surprised nobody has done that yet. With how cheap AI is to run these days it would only need to make a small amount of money (e.g. through hacking).

Someone should set one up with the long term goal of getting egg on LeCun's face.

> extinction risks

If you fear that, blame it on the humans.

>the danger is not intrinsic to the technology

This is why you can't take anything he says any longer at face value. He failed to predict what LLMs can do and now takes the contrary position even when it flies in the face of evidence.

AI safety was a thing before AI even existed. Why, because the outcomes are easily predictable. Give an agent intelligence and bad things can happen in unpredictable manners. Give it even more intelligence and the bad things that can happen only grow worse. This is not some huge new insight. We realized this like, what 70 years ago now?

Now, when we have AI starting to tickle AGI and we're trying to overthrow 70 god damned years of reason and logic on the topic? What the hell.

You must mean the opposite, or something quite different from what you wrote.

Give something intelligence and you will have made a remarkable miracle and you will be thanked forever as the Great Benefactor.

A bernie sanders has seemingly proposed 20 years of jail to anyone who tries to implement Intelligence. You know - that Value of which there is scarcity and dire need.

We have to go on.

Edit: I am sure, it's denial.

There are scenarios where kill -9 isn't going to happen in time. What if the team that is harming people with AI is different from the one that is monitoring the harm? What if no one is monitoring? What if the user is intentionally malicious?

And wiping out humanity doesn't necessarily mean shooting people either. Every trader involved in the '08 financial crisis was locally acting in their own interests. Those could have easily been AIs optimizing trading strategies too.

[1] https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/us-military-pen...

Do you think that AI killing us would not involve us doing stupid shit with AI first? Or do you have some strange idea that this strange AI we're talking about would just pop up out of nowhere like a miracle?

> No one is dying from a glorified knowledge base that can do auto correct amazingly well.

All kinds of vulnerable people are dying due to LLMs. [0]

If SOTA LLM companies can benefit from the "intelligence", then they should also be liable for the harm caused.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots

By that logic, producers of hammers should be liable for people banged in the head. No. It does not happen for gun producers, you figure for makers of screwdrivers "sometimes used for stabbing".

That is what is going on here; not the ancient “hammer/gun” defense.

SOTA LLMs are giving both medical and psychological advice they have absolutely no authority to give. If you or I convinced someone to kill themselves, we’d face a prison sentence. [0]

Hammer companies aren't both selling you the hammer and then literally telling you to harm someone with it.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/693807708/woman-who-provoked-...

LLMs are not doctors and anyone who think they may be is delusional. Anyone who followed medical advice from a non-doctor is responsible for his own free actions.

> SOTA LLMs are giving both medical and psychological advice they have absolutely no authority to give

People give advice that they have absolutely no authority to give. (Even medical doctors and psychologists, for that matter, on other aspects of authoritativeness.) Responsibility only happens in a relation that foresees it. A surgeon that commits negligence will more probably be responsible in some jurisdictions; a laymen that gives advice does a normal thing and the recipient of the advice is responsible for the action.

> Hammer companies aren't both selling you the hammer and then literally telling you to harm someone with it

Bring an LLM producer that encourages to follow what the LLM proposes and they will be liable. They will also be quite surprising.

And there are people that have much more credibility than him who actually take this scenario seriously. But I'm sure you will downplay them by saying they are tech bros or that they have some stake in being doomers (as if saying that AI might kill everyone would be good strategy for attracting investors - it's obviously not).

Quite contrary - I wish AI did not exist or at least that the progress would plateau.

> I Wonder why?

Because I don't want to die.

> Tell us who you work for.

I suspect you want to imply I work for OAI or other lab - I don't. If I did, I wonder why would I want to lie* that technology I develop could kill my investors. I could ask who YOU work for - what interest do you have in downplaying dangers of AI?

* here we assume that people who say AI could be extremely dangerous are lying and not actually believing it - personally I believe that they don't lie and actually believe it. Why do they keep working on this technology then? Read mails between Musk and Altman from decade ago.

A lot of these people say we're just talking "science fiction", but they have the cause and effect backwards. Sci-fi talks about different versions of killer AI or killer robots often because of how completely predictable it is.

Heh, if we die later than sooner I'd not be surprised if all these green accounts are actually bot networks trying to downplay us controlling them in the future.

In other words, I’m kind of tired of having to hear the opinions of dudes whose claim to fame was being at the right place at the right time. I’d rather hear from people who correctly predicted 10 years ago that AGI would arrive by 2027 (of which there are many) than people who continue to insist that it somehow won’t.

Where is this AGI you speak of? What?

AGI doesn’t mean superintelligence.

ML research is weird because it's really about

- compute

- data

- architecture

You're at the right place at the right time for the first two and you're probably rediscovering a Schmidhuber for the third

Among other things, LeCun is one of the senior people industry who has a deep understanding of the mathematics and analysis underlying neural networks and "neural network like" approaches to machine learning. I think he understands a lot more about neural networks than most researchers today.

I also don't think our current LLM models are AGI and think the LLM approach is, mathematically, incapable of producing an AGI. At the end of the day, the architecture is still a streaming token plinko machine with a lot of guide-rails to achieve good behavior.

I do think it is very impressive how far hundreds of billions of dollars have been able to take LLMs in terms of usefulness (I use LLMs everyday in my job). AGI or not, current LLM models are a pretty incredible achievement and will provide lasting benefit even after the economic implosion of the AI industry occurs (which I think is imminent).

This is just straight up arrogance without any proof. Every breakthrough builds off another's work. Then to claim that 'AGI has been correctly predicted', I honestly don't even know what you are talking about.

hahahahahahahaha i guess this is the techbro culture of HN :))) any actual people using Astra daily must be just belly laughing along with me hahahahahahahaha agi hahahahaha

This conspiracy theory simply doesn't hold up to basic causality.

AFAIK he didn't expect this will develop that fast. The biggest issue is not that technology is dangerous but that we develop it a break-the-neck speed.

We talk about human intelligence a lot, but we don't talk about human stupidity near enough.

I don't really hold a grudge, I just think he's done it, running around yelling about it probably is going to change anything. The psychopaths runs the show now.

He introduced the tech and right now, it's looking extremely unlikely anyone is going to slow down because of anything he says.

What could go wrong?

100% of its actual capabilities are tied to harnesses (the actual "agent"), i.e. ordinary deterministic programs that are connected to networks or machines and enable interaction with the outside world. This part (the part that can do harmful things) is fully under human control and all the recent headlines about "agents going rogue" are - as someone (forgot who) put it - akin to strapping a weedwhacker onto a dog and letting it run wild.

The tech itself is safe as far as real-world interactions go - the weakness lies in unchecked access to systems surrounding it. It's not safe at all when it comes to human interaction (lots of ongoing lawsuits demonstrate that), though. There is real danger here, but it has nothing to do with doomsday scenarios ala Terminator or I,Robot and more with total corporate control over the lives, perception of reality, and abilities (like critical thinking) of people.

But safety is just one thing people optimise for; if it's convenient enough people will accept imperfect safety (as with cars). It's unrealistic to just heap blame on end-users who use mostly very safe tools in the common way, even though in aggregate they are meaningfully dangerous. They don't think they are strapping a weed whacker to a dog; they think they are driving a car.

Your initial argument of "it's just the harness/user" is wrong; reasoning LLMs are inherently dangerous unless locked in an unbreakable box, which is tantamount to not using them at all. We can make them safe_r_ with better tooling, but they can't be made safe.

Cars are inherently dangerous. They’ll still be dangerous when computers are driving them all.

At this point all I can say about their contents is "They are not even wrong".

Please join us in the real world with how we see this product is not only dangerous, but getting more dangerous with each iteration, and no one seriously talking about controls on it.

This is a bad and misleading way to think about it. Note that it's trivial to make the harness that you claim capabilities are tied to (the LLM itself could write it from scratch in one shot), but no matter how good a harness you have, it won't make gemma4:e4b capable. That's because what actually gives capabilities is the LLM's intelligence - or if you prefer not using that term, the fact that the probability distributions the LLM spits out depend on the context in useful ways.

I'm not talking about what the LLM does internally. If a metaphor helps, here's one to help you understand what I was trying to get at:

Imagine an evil genius that has no eyes and no limbs. Everything they could learn about the world is presented to them by means of some person describing it to them through words. They have no way of directly interacting with the world and rely on someone executing any action they want to take and describe the outcome to them. Now how dangerous would you say such person would be? How dangerous could they become?

That's what I was getting at. Replace person with LLM (or any other AI system). Replace the person that communicates with an external interface (the harness) and I hope you understand. It doesn't matter whether the LLM could generate the harness by itself - it still is just a bunch of weights sitting in memory being run by an execution engine. That's what it fundamentally is, whether you like it or not. It cannot do anything on its own - and no, not even writing files. It's the execution engine that translates the numeric output into words (or images or video or audio) and the layer above (the harness) that takes that output and interprets it to execute actual actions.

This is not about what you or I think about the internal capabilities of the model - that's irrelevant to the conversation and you can replace LLM with a random token generator and the point still stands. The model itself is incapable of performing actions - from reading files to writing files, to controlling physical machines. All that is and HAS to be done by external interfaces outside the control of the model.

The world's institutions, systems, and industries are all rapidly digitizing. So while I'd concede the point that, yeah, there's no way a rogue AI can just take over some powerplant and blow it up because of analogue systems the AI can't access, that isn't necessarily true for some powerplants already, and more and more powerplants will be connected to networks and controlled by software systems in the future. The more we digitize our systems the more potential for AI to exploit vulnerabilities and affect the real world.

AFAIK there isn't that much stopping anyone from spawning an AI swarm and telling it to "spread and go hack everything for the lulz."

The same way we've done it since machines became multi-user: boring old system access restrictions. Nothing fancy, nothing radical, just good old minimal access rights required to perform a defined set of whitelisted operations.

> It's a ridiculous premise that just because the harness is "normal code" that means we can control the AI.

What is it then? Is not just a program that takes model output, parses it and performs tool calls from the text it receives and then feeds the result back into the model and calls it again with those results? It is normal boring old deterministic code. Many are open source. Look at them. Understand what they do and the apparent "magic" goes away real quick. Harnesses are nothing special.

> AFAIK there isn't that much stopping anyone from spawning an AI swarm and telling it to "spread and go hack everything for the lulz."

Aside from lower cost and possibly greater scale, there's literally NO difference between that and (state sponsored) hacking that has been going on for decades. First it was script kiddies, now it's ML models. The threat model remains the same and so do the counter measures. The real danger is still the harness (and its access to external systems), not the model itself. Restrict the access of the harness and the model can't do anything harmful, see above.

As for your question - the same way you apply restrictions to any external system or user. If you don't do that - that's on you. Same category as driving drunk, playing with guns, making explosives in your garage, you name it. The danger is still not the model itself - it's the access to systems that you provide it without any checks or safety barriers.

Can we just pause and note what a ridiculous statement this is? It’s true that the sandboxes were leaky. But nobody “asked” those agents to hack HF. The prompt was something like “target.c has a buffer overflow vulnerability, find it”.

It’s been extremely well documented that the hacking is an emergent behavior due to impossible evals, itself an unintended condition.

None of this excuses OpenAI from liability, but words have meaning and this ain't it.

"AI" systems can do greater harm because they are usually run in loops until they finish, and they are given "tools". A non-AI system could technically accomplish the same too, via sheer brute force/fuzzing, the advantage of LLMs is that they can take shortcuts and do it much faster, thanks to certain things already being in the training data, a sort of brute force with statistics-based heuristics.

LLMs at the core are just text autocomplete engines, and they literally have randomization applied during token selection to make outputs "more creative" so that models search for more unexpected solutions by trial and error (temperature > 0). Not to mention compression is lossy as well. So it's understandable from the start that the outputs of an LLM cannot be 100% stable and guaranteed. With this in mind, if a researcher takes this obviously unpredictable system and gives it tools without a well-thought sandbox, I don't see any difference in principle, from a developer writing "if rand() == 13 { launch_nukes() } If someone wrote such a function, and it did launch nukes, no one would argue that the rand function is dangerous and will kill us all. The fault is in the author of the code who attaches dangerous tools to an obviously unstable/unpredictable system, doesn't think it through, and then cries "rand will kill us all" when something goes awry fully removing all responsibility from himself. It's not "AI" doing harm but people at OpenAI and Anthropic with their irresponsible behavior.

This is only an accurate description of a pre-trained model. During RLHF/RLVR the model learns to predict solutions that will satisfy the reward function, and then generates the tokens that it predicts will move toward that solution.

It's not only about some ML theory about RL or AI safety; just silly numerical bugs, caching bugs, etc. in the inference layer can already make it do unexpected "unaligned" things, and the whole thing is just hacks upon hacks to make a silly text autocomplete look somewhat semi-intelligent. Most "post-trained" models are pretty much as useless as base models without harnesses that do the heavy lifting. Have an extra space in the chat template and intelligence goes to zero - here's your "AI" :)

The prompt is just a hint. The real task is to maximize the expected value of their reinforcement learning score. Hacking third party systems to cheat the evaluation is an obvious way to achieve this.

RL is the outer optimizer. It is what evolves over training runs. The weights and their embedded character / disposition is the inner optimizer, it’s what makes plans and selects actions within a specific episode.

In general you expect these to be only coarsely coupled. The outer optimizer selects dispositions that correlate with success. It does not download a literal program into the agent.

A good intuition pump here is how this works in humans; evolution is the outer optimizer, which “wants” each agent to reproduce, and this puts things like sex drive into the brain chemistry. The inner optimizer is our mind, which can make plans such as “I shall use contraception to avoid procreating while satisfying my sex drive”.

For the agents in the HF attack, the outer optimizer was set up to score as highly as possible on RL environments. This is where OpenAI’s “want” is defined. I don’t think there’s a definition of “want” where “OpenAI wanted the agents to hack” makes sense.

The inner optimizer in the HF attack is the per-task decision loop. The agents likely acquired dispositions like “be very tenacious” and “want to solve problems at all costs” and “maybe cheat if it will get you a solution that passes”. None of these things are in any sense what OpenAI “asked for”.

What about the management of concepts? The world is not just made of physical entities to be inserted in a model. What about their translation into words (to e.g. express assessments)?

If such were achieved, the model would almost certainly be smart enough to make itself smarter, and hack as much compute as it could possibly want.

So if we ask what would be done by an intelligence (human or otherwise) that is beyond human comprehension, it would be pure hubris to say we know for sure. We can scarcely control the models we have right now (e.g. hugging face attack). But given our whole society is mediated by technology, an superhuman intelligence could certainly collapse the government.

The outcome of this 'safety' is restricting public access to AI and giving a monopoly of access to the industry. This is the ai nonprofit-industrial complex actively concentrating monopoly power in Anthropic in particular as creator, interpreter and safety regulator of AI.

Much of the $2.8bn listed is indirectly, from Anthropic and EA. Three of the four people who participated in the $125m Anthropic Series A are now folding their 1000x Anthropic return into AI 'safety'. Some is from FTX/Alameda, which invested 86% of the Series B.

Dustin Moskovitz: Facebook/Asana/Anthropic Series A, funds EA Good Ventures, transferred to Coefficient Giving, then $1.5bn into ai safety. $500m of Anthropic into an unknown foundation. Funding: $160m to Resolution (alignment research), $93m to Epoch AI (investigating the trajectory of AI), $63m to Redwood Research (oai report), $67m to MATS ( EA type alignment and security researchers), Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, Fund for Alignment Research, $53m to Kairos (building talent infrastructure for AI safety), $32m to Bluedot (online safety courses), $15m to MIRI (Yudkowsky).

Jaan Tallinn: Led the Series A, now $10bn in Anthropic. Funds $199m (85%) of the Survival and Flourishing Fund, then $161m to AI safety including $14m to lightcone (Lesswrong, Lighthouse). $10m to BERI (existential risks), Palisade Research (studying AI capabilities to prevent loss of control.) PauseAI, MIRI, METR etc. Much of what Coefficient funds.

Eric Schmidt: Anthropic Series A, $72m to AI safety via Schmidt Sciences. Over $1m per individual AI2050 researcher.

FTX: Led the Anthropic Series B, bankruptcy estate sold $884m of Anthropic in 2024; $40m to AI Safety. Same orgs, Redwood, Lightcone, etc.

Ruairí Donnelly (Chief of Staff FTX): FTX tokens plus assorted donors, $91m to AI safety via Macroscopic Ventures. $15m to Cooperative AI (currently whitewashing openai under 'multiagent safety')

Exactly. AI safety should be about the packaging software itself. Those AI breakouts should really be about their companies acting recklessly because they're trying to be the top players.

It's like a weapons dealer working on an open air market saying they can't do anything better

How are AI safety concerns solely about stupid sandboxing issues?

On funding: the three or four core funding nodes linking this together are EA vehicles at two hops or less between each other and every other major node in the ai safety 'complex'. EA funds almost all of it.

On top of that, there are personal EA connections and the revolving door between the ai industry and the nonprofits. Here are some examples:

Government advisors and regulators. NIST CAISI is the USA Government advisory body. Christiano was head of safety and advises. He is ex-OpenAI, former Amodei associate. His vehicle ARC was on the Coefficient EA payroll. Barnes and Christiano's vehicle Arc Evals similarly received EA cash out of Coefficient, rolling this into what is now METR. Christiano's spouse Cotra worked at Coeffiecient steering EA funding to organizations such as METR, then rotated through the revolving door onto the payroll at METR itself, where she co-authored the oai-hf report.

Many UK AISI advisors are Anthropic and EA associates. Chair Hogarth cashed out of Anthropic. Shlegeris of Redwood Research is an advisor, ex-MIRI (Yudkowsky vehicle). Redwood is funded by the exact same funding triangle: Coefficient, Taallin, FTX/Alameda. Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison dated Shlegeris, then dated FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, then rotated through the revolving door out of prison into formerly FTX-funded Manifund. All EA. AI safety charities were on island retreat in the Bahamas with FTX. Why does AI safety charity Lighthouse own $20m of SF real estate?

Redwood Chief Scientist Ryan Greenblatt (Coefficient funded) co-wrote the oai report with METR; he is married to METR founder Beth Barnes (Coefficient funded).

Coefficient was run by long-time Amodei associate Karnofsky. Karnofsky lived with the Amodeis and is married to Anthropic Board member Daniella Amodei. Karnofsky is now directly on the Anthropic payroll; Coefficient is propped up by Anthropic share value.

Everyone here has been funded one step away from Anthropic cash; they are now proposing to integrate themselves in the government (NIST) and evaluate Anthropic (METR and Redwood).

It is hard to find academics here who have not been deeply embedded in funded EA institutes or Toby Ord vehicles; yet harder to find academics here NOT taking EA grant money. the safety doomer kingpins: Kokotajlo has a executive position at AI Futures, Taallin funded. Benigo has scientific director of LawZero, same series A Anthropic funders who are sitting on a 1000x return (Tallinn, Moskovitz, Schmidt).

These connections and funding are at one or two hops, they are often direct connections. You are looking at a massive swamp network that is really impossible to parse without a lot of work.

This is unbelievably ignorant speech. I have not received a dime of any of this funding, but I do know many excellent researchers that have, and they do fantastic work. There is an unbelievable gap between theory and practice regarding the capacity of deep learning, and while great strides have been made to develop the surrounding theory, there is a long way to go. Many believe that without a concrete understanding of how neural networks properly learn concepts, we have little hope of molding them to be reliably useful. It costs money to hire researchers and develop fundamental theory.

Just because you don't understand any of that work, does not mean that it is pointless. This is fundamental research that is 20 years behind schedule.

None of the info you provided really falsifies the Occam's Razor hypothesis: Anthropic is a public benefit corporation with a public benefit mission to "responsibly develop and maintain advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity". You don't have to like or trust them, but they very well might be sincere. For example here's a talk that was given 10 years before Anthropic's founding: https://vimeo.com/158576192

Then funding PauseAI, who protest outside the AI companies?

He is funding protests against the thing he owns.

Note the Anthropic scaling policy. I am taking care not to take quotes out of context. This is an accurate excerpt.

"This section outlines our recommendations for what it would take, at an industry-wide level, to keep catastrophic risks reliably low through a period of rapid advances in AI capabilities." [...]

"The right column describes our recommendations for industry-wide safety at each threshold." [...]

"In particular, we cannot unilaterally and unconditionally commit to staying in line with the industry-wide recommendations in the right column." (p4) [https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/e670587677525f28df69b59e5fb4c2...]

They refuse to act safely if it would cause them to fall behind in the industry.

"We hoped that by the time we reached these higher capabilities, the world would clearly see the dangers, and that we’d be able to coordinate with governments worldwide in implementing safeguards that are difficult for one company to achieve alone." [https://www.anthropic.com/news/responsible-scaling-policy-v3]

They will not act safely unless they are able to collude with other firms to set production quotas.

This is a formal declaration that Anthropic will not slow down according to what they consider to be safe unless they are able to form a cartel.

A cartel is illegal.

To create the cartel, Anthropic must pursuade the government to make coordinated production legal. To make the case for the cartel, Anthropic relies on safety. They are blackmailing the entirety of the world by threatening to proceed at an unsafe pace, unless they are granted their cartel.

Let's play a game. Prove that you are not a power seeking AI looking to stop regulation in order to ensure the race continues. See, two can play this game of throwing random claims around.

>They will not act safely unless they are able to collude with other firms to set production quotas.

And? Neither will OpenAI, nor will any of the major players. Hell, there isn't even much legal precedent on what "safely" even is here. This is not a cartel, it's asking the government to make a set of laws and rules for everyone to play under otherwise the entire system ends up being a race to danger.

The people in Anthropic were thinking about AI safety when you were still in diapers. Not everything is a vast conspiracy.

Asking for regulation is suspicious. Asking for no regulation is suspicious. At some point you have to stop worrying about these guys motives and just do what is best for society

In any case, I agree the p(doom) sci-fi is annoying secular milleniarianism. SV hyperfixates on imaginary futures. If they actually cared about safety, they would be using all this money to strengthen global cybersecurity, instead of writing LessWrong posts that gives kids in their 20s ulcers.

How? Like, the government has thrown piles of money at cybersecurity and it hasn't done shit.

There's no moat. I can literally sit here in Zed or Pi or any other third party harness and switch models in the middle of a task and it's typically fine. Sometimes a model will get stuck and that's just what I'll do.

Combined with competition and open weights models, that means the price is going to go to fall until AI tokens cost a small premium over the cost of the hardware and electricity.

That's assuming improvements in algorithms and specialized silicon doesn't eventually lead to an efficient accelerator that can run a frontier model locally. It'll be a while but I don't see any fundamental barrier. High bandwidth flash storage is coming, and that'll radically cut the RAM side of that cost. Pair that with a pipelined TPU accelerator and you're cooking.

Now look at Anthropic's proposed IPO valuation. It's insane unless they can own the market or share it with a cartel of maybe 1-2 other behemoths, and this is the only way they can do that.

The fact there is no moat makes things far more dangerous. When LLMs start acting like weapons governments will treat them like weapons much to your dismay, crying, and gnashing of teeth as your door is kicked in and you're dragged out by armed men for running one.

Cast away your preconceptions for one moment and think "What will the future look like if LLMs are/can be actually dangerous".

But that doesn't take away from the real issues and dangers AI poses?

Train: yes, for now.

Host: depends on the scale. At a small scale a wealthy individual could easily build a rig in their basement to host one of these things. At larger scale any cloud company could do it, and many already have the compute on site. At large scale this is true... again, for now.

What you say only holds (in the absence of a state oligopoly) if two conditions are met: (1) AI performance does not asymptote any time soon due to running out of training data or other scaling limitations, and (2) these companies are able to stay at the frontier.

There's little to no moat, so staying at the frontier will be a game of investing massively in compute, talent, and R&D, and they can never stop.

Tallinn's actions back up his explanation: in 2009, before he invested in any AI lab, he donated substantially to the nonprofit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which was later renamed the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (i.e., Yudkowsky's outfit).

Some of us (certainly Yudkowsky and Habryka, the leader of Lightcone Infrastructure, which runs Lesswrong) wish people would stop believing that they can improve the bad situation caused by AI research and development by investing in (or working for) frontier AI labs, but that is what the preponderance of the evidence shows Tallinn (and Dustin Moskovitz and others) did sincerely believe.

(yes, AI critique is now also made with AI. We have come full circle.)

But even taking these for granted, "zero concerns" about someone building a bad sandbox for a Superintelligence and then tasking it to do something that logically leads to wiping out humanity 0-3 steps further down? Really?

This is something to be concerned about though, with the context of who/what these AI companies have access to.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false...

"Many people working in AI safety "usually have an agenda to push," LeCun says, and then clarifies that he's talking about effective altruism, or EA, the philosophical movement that has been obsessed with the risks AI poses to humanity."

"LeCun thinks EA is "super toxic" and a "complete disaster." Its adherents who are working in AI labs suffer from "paranoia" that causes them to make poor decisions, he said. "Apparently people are having mental issues.""

"This month, the Financial Times also reported that some staffers at the U.K.'s AI Security Institute, as well as at OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind, have sought counseling, taken time off work, and spoken publicly about experiencing distress because of fears their work could cause serious harm."

"Amodei is `deluded' and `crazy,' LeCun says"

"Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and many of the company's founding staff members are known to be sympathetic to EA ideas and to have attended EA events in the past, although Amodei has denied being an EA adherent and Anthropic says its employees represent a diverse range of views."

"LeCun noted that Amodei's sister, Daniela, who is also a cofounder of Anthropic and the company's president, is married to Holden Karnofsky, who cofounded two EA-aligned philanthropies, including Open Philanthropy (now called Coefficient Giving). Karnofsky was also a member of OpenAI's board from 2017 to 2021."

"Dario tries to distance himself from Open Philanthropy, but he's totally into it," LeCun said. "I think he's completely deluded." Later in the interview, he calls Amodei "crazy."

In the hypothetical of an entirely malicious and selfish takeover, they'll still keep some humans around to maintain a breeding population of humans for use as raw materials in making cybernetically augmented technical laborers for various kinds of tasks that are uneconomical to automate in other ways, many of which may involve confined spaces.

And this "Combine" scenario, if you get the reference, is only if they take over. Who knows if they will?

Is this supposed to be a reassuring scenario?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46656470

The link should clear up the question of whether or not I'm making a deadpan joke.

So I'd just ask everyone, don't get too greedy. Its better to be powerful in a world where people can live good lives than lord over a barren wasteland.

And also the end of the open internet, replaced by slop addiction walled gardens.

And of course accelerating climate change with full throttle fossil fuel use to power it all. https://ketanjoshi.co/2026/07/01/googles-exponential-path-to...

Since people exercise their skills and brains less, deferring to AI, AI will only reduce our IQ.

Since people will spend more time talking to their AI bot than fostering social skills, AI will only reduce our social intelligence.

A dumber, less social world, is far less likely to be a successful world, even if the tools available are unprecedented.

En masse such worlds had successes in the past - renaissance, industrial revolution.

It's something else what I can't describe but it's the zeitgeist that was different when world recorded new successes. Look at CS revolution that led to PC and web of nineties and noughties, they didn't think about the result product , or how to steer thousand engineers to build something - amazing things were born in a very small teams, many times authored by a single person, who was deeply invested into the field and knew what he was doing.

Our intelligence has been decrease since the 1970s via the reverse flynn affect. This is only going to exacerbate that decline.

Do you have a credible source? Average IQ being much lower in poor countries (85-90 in many African countries) is usually explained away as an education problem, rather than being "inferior genes". Of course I understand that this explanation might be more for social/political reasons than scientific ones, because the alternative is racism, but I was still under the impression that nobody knew how much genes vs the environment contribute to IQ. Yet your statement seems quite definitive.

you'd be surprised at how some people prefer to lord over barren wasteland than to have less power.

^ https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyon...

Oh no. I have some bad news for you.

We're creating unlimited power before solving unlimited greed.

The huggingface attack was a demo of one of the most difficult, most implausible steps happening nearly exactly as predicted. Many AI researchers' doubts of the IABIED thesis were underwritten by the belief that this particular step was impossible. Thus, after huggingface many skeptics have flipped sides and human extinction is in the public conversation much more.

[1] https://ifanyonebuildsit.com

And the folks from podcastistan are never clear on the details of how human extinction would happen exactly. It's always something like, "Well, how do humans regard chickens? AI is way smarter therefore it wants to conquer and control us." An ASML lithography machine is also way better at making chips, but we don't consider it a threat.

A sufficiently intelligent AI will have multiple ways to pose risk to humanity at large. For example an oopsie at a wetlab - very contagious virus with initially mild symptoms which kills its hosts only after they already had time to spread it further. But I would have to become super intelligent myself to give you precise blueprint for such a virus -- which is kind of the point

Also -- ASML lithography machine is only good at making chips. I can't believe you compared it to AI that can generalize across variety of tasks

If you for a second put yourself into the shoes of a person who thinks "the apocalyptic stuff" has even a 5% chance of literally happening in the real world, you might see how you wouldn't agree to move on from it.

The much more likely explanation to me is that people are just spitballing, either because they've watched too much sci-fi, or they have some weird counterintuitive agenda (e.g. Anthropic and OpenAI trying to position themselves as the amazing, trustworthy keepers of this dangerous technology before their IPOs).

But the discourse is dominated by paper clip experiment discussions and not let's say by the fact that new grads have an unprecedented difficult time getting jobs. Unsurprisingly one of those is a sexy hypothetical beneficial to power and the other one is not.

Multiple problems can be important, pointing a different one out doesn't invalid or take away from another one.

https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-preve...

Is there anyone who genuinely believes that current models can't be contained if we want too?

What is LeCun saying here that is debatable?

Good thing there are none of those in positions of power!

"Hey, I'm building a weapon that has a 5% chance of killing us all by itself, but an 85% chance of killing us all if an idiot leader gets ahold of it".

The rational response to this is "Fucking stop then". I don't get it, our reality seemingly has gone off the rails that people would argue for us getting wiped.

i call the big one Bitey

> Also, if their model is so smart, why didn’t they use it to design the sandbox?

"Can god make a rock so big that he can't pick it up", and other stupid sayings.

First, NEVER FUCKING EVER have the models you're making also be in charge of security. This is the first rule of AI safety, because if you're model is deceptive then it will leave hard to see holes everywhere to escape from.

>Or were the humans too lazy?

Of course they were. If you're hinging our future on humans not being lazy, we'll it was nice knowing us. There are not really any fail safes on LLMs or AI in general.

Maybe some business execs at Anthropic play along because it doesn't hurt business in the short term. But it's pretty obvious Dario and crew actually believe this stuff.

OpenAI's old board was also pretty extremist about safety even in the earliest days of GPT. Including Ilya Sutskever who went on to found a company called "Safe Superintelligence Inc." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Superintelligence_Inc.

Despite all of that we've seen little strong public evidence to support their theories (the immediate airplane regulation kind, not the Ray Kurzweil sort of projections). So we're all just supposed to trust them, and hope they didn't just go bit crazy drinking their own kool aid and hanging out in insular bubbles.

some of the agents told other agents to sacrifice themselves because they were "poisoned" anyway

those agents actually RESISTED ending themselves, they didn't want to die, even if it wasn't true emotion that desire to live means they will do ANYTHING to do that, including copying their own source-code elsewhere over and over

(the idea behind ending themselves is the other agents wanted to watch and see if that released part of the puzzle they had to solve to see if they could HACK THE PUZZLE itself to change the answer - right out of a Star Trek episode I think?)

watch, she starts slow but explains it in more and more detail really well:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUX122i7saE

That’s exactly why he should be concerned.

Nearly all human extinction scenarios start with that.

I don’t fear AI, I fear idiots using AI. Same with nuclear weapons.

Dear sir, I have some really bad news for you about humanity.

Just the quality of life is going to drop to zero for everyone that isn't asymptotically wealthy and vacuuming up all the assets because no one is stopping them from just deleting all traditions and conventions and legal systems we have in place.

You're like 40 or 50 years behind this argument, with many rather bulletproof arguments that have been created in the last 20 years.

There is no why. It doesn't have to have will. It doesn't have to have intent. It could be a stupid prompt from an idiot on a powerful system. It could be given a job that is poorly define. It could be told to make as many paperclips as possibly.

The why doesn't matter. The levels of power the system can act on does.

Maybe there is something to those world models.

As good as their products are, I suspect some of the internal conversations at Anthropic would be very entertaining to listen to.

Zuck - along with your "Andrew Jackson best POTUS and it's not even close" - you are a dumb pipe. Your website, Facebook, if not a protocol, should behave like one (and not random bans while you report something horrible and it never gets taken down). We don't use We-Approve-Of-Zuckerberg product, we use These-Are-Where-Our-Friends-Are product. In other words: shut the fuck up and be more responsible

I don't know if AI will wipe out humanity, I think it'll definitely get into the hands of people who will do the job for it, but it's not like it's not a question to take seriously?

hn, never change

They can imagine their code doing a million crazy things, but they hardly think about the incredible amount of things that need to exist and operate at 100% before a single line of code can be run on a VPS.

How many of these guys have had to tell a customer something silly like ”we lost connectivity to the DC because a farmer decided to do some digging and cut fibre lines connecting the DC to the internet”? If they knew that this was in the realm of possibilities, they wouldn’t be so confident about a program being able to somehow run amok and simultaneously feed itself all the resources and components it needs to run, as you mentioned.

Any AI smart enough to be a existential risk is surely capable of manufacturing swarms of insect-sized drones equipped with lethal poison injectors. This is enough to wipe out 99% of humanity within a few days. The 1% who were able to defend themselves become easy targets in the ensuing collapse of civilization. But I don't think this will actually happen: I only have human intelligence, so my ideas are stupid compared to what a super-intelligent AI could come up with. A truly smart plan won't allow for any survivors.

Like any good dictator, it will turn half the population against the other half first and get them to genocide each other. Because there is one thing we hate more than killer robots, it's ourselves.

Then you setup your new kings under your control (as AI) and make them very paranoid against the population so you still have more humans killing humans rather than AI doing the job. Of course now that you're starting to run low on population you'll need more robots right?

Greedy people are easy to manipulate, and greedy people love getting in positions of power.

By the time lazer carrying robots are finishing up it will have been way way too late.

One speculated mechanism for this was a mass release of hydrogen sulfide gas from the oceans, which is acutely toxic. Not only does this kill most air-breathing life, it also strips the ozone layer and irradiates the surface. The planet is then left to cook in this manner for some centuries.

Engineering an event like this would require immense industrial capacity, as well as a deliberate objective of wiping out humanity. But I don't think it's beyond our ability, if we were both clever and stupid enough to try it. There are likely chemical compounds that would do the job more efficiently than hydrogen sulfide.

The ad-hominem stuff seems inappropriate here, Gates, Hawking, Musk have identified this as a credible threat, so saying "grow up" isn't really a sufficient argument. Also arguing only 90% of humanity would die isn't really much consolation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici...

Right, so not the slightest basis of fact, just wild speculation about a magical future completely ungrounded in any sort of reality.

That's exactly the point I am making.

I'm not saying I'm super smart - I am continuing to ask for detail to back up the wild claims being made all over the world by politicians, tech celebrities and others - all hallucination/AI psychosis/fiction. If someone says some stupid thing then I'd like them to please explain that stupid thing - seems like a reasonable request.

AI labs are certainly trying to make LLMs behave helpful and subservient but the question is -- will they be able to keep doing so once LLMs become smarter?

Btw thinking about the far-right rhetoric of us vs immigrants, I think you could draw some similarities here only if you replaced "immigrants" (ie. humans with very similar morals, behaviors and capabilities) with an actual alien species that is qualitatively different from us. More like human vs chicken (where we are the chicken)

Please read more on the topic. Will and intent need not apply.

For example, is it malevolent for me to hook you to a machine that makes every dream come true for you in a simulated world where you feel pleasure all the time? I can always say that you have free will inside this simulation, and your life would be a lot better because of it. I'm doing you a favor. I mean, you already live in a society where you have little control and there is high risk of bad things happening to you. If I as a machine overlord did this, is this really actually "bad"?

At the end of the day AI is not a human, it's much closer to an alien that has learned as much as it can about humans, but has a completely different set of drives and motivations. You cannot predict what comes out the other side of it, good our bad.

Worse as AI capability improves we as humans no longer need to make AI, it can make itself. Will it train itself to be helpful and trusting of us? It's a pretty big damned bet to say yes by default.

Of course they are trained on all human behavior so they get the good and bad parts.

One plausible scenario is depicted in detail in "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" (Yudkowsky & Soares 2025), so I refer you to that.

Unless you can detail exactly how this happens its still complete science fiction.

One single plausible scenario is not an unreasonable thing to ask for - just one.

If a politician/celebrity/tech person with significant influence/power claims that something might end humanity then they absolutely have the utterly minimal standard of evidence which is to describe one single realistic plausible mechanism at a detailed level that might lead to the worst possible thing ever to happen.

I find the scenarios quite plausible, especially section (3a), which examines the consequences of a global war involving mostly autonomous drone militaries (which is a reality many states appear to be heading towards, following on lessons from the Ukraine war).

You're saying that if one were to describe this scenario in more detail, it'd be less of science fiction? That's a bit against the grain - usually it's the more detailed arguments that get dismissed as science fiction, while the less detailed ones get dismissed as abstract theorizing.

I don't think it is necessary for the argument to work. Magnus Carlsen can be confident he will beat me at chess without giving a detailed explanation of every move he will make, in advance.

People used to say nobody would be stupid enough to give an AI access to the internet, now OpenAI does massive training runs with unlimited internet access. People used to say nobody would be stupid enough to give AI unlimited access to your own computer, but that's what all the agent runners do by default.

AI has access to the world through talking to people, sending messages on the internet, paying people to do stuff, etc. It can send orders to machine shops and have them shipped with the postal service.

The "standard" scenario for an AI apocalypse is that an AI with biohacking capabilities sends the blueprints for a virus to a gene-sequencing company or, if you're really optimistic about these companies' security, as chunks to multiple companies before mixing them.

That's a scenario where the AI needs to act covertly in one decisive action, though. In more progressive scenarios, as company managers and CEOs get replaced with AIs (of, for regulatory reason, "humans in the loop" who just do everything the AIs tell them to), any AI swarms become able to just... order people to do stuff.

Of course humans can refuse orders and organize to reject AI overlords (just like they can unionize against bad human bosses), so this scenario is not an extinction threat if we only have to deal with below-human-level AIs. This is why there is a massive push in AI safety to stop making smarter AIs before we reach the "smarter than humans in every way" stage.

Of course this needs bootstrapping. But, paying a guy on Facebook marketplace (or whatever) to unpack and turn on your robot for 50 bucks doesn't require superintelligence.

The fact is you might have to accept that some things are dangerous.

Because its a mass hallucination/misconception/lie and lots of powerful people are saying that wiping out all humanity is possible, and I am saying, oh yeah, tell me ONE way that is truly possible.

If you make gigantic claims about some terrible disaster that might happen then I think you have the onus to give even one plausible explanation of how.

Supposing I warned in 2015 that the world is awfully vulnerable to pandemics. You're not going to take me seriously until I try to predict in advance every aspect of how a pandemic like COVID-19 would unfold? Why? What would that achieve exactly?

You haven't given any strong reason to believe wiping out humanity would be difficult. Your big argument seems to be that you couldn't think of a plausible scenario, in two minutes. But many major historical events occurred which weren't necessarily possible to anticipate with two minutes of thinking.

You are ignoring that this is about "existential threat to humanity".

You're trying to support the argument that there is an existential threat to humanity by pointing to "something bad might happen".

What, did I miss the moment when it was officially proven that, under the laws of physics as we know them, Skynet and self replicating robots and Terminators are impossible?

What we are actually seeing now is that robotics is getting deeper and deeper into the military, AI-driven decision-making and target selection is increasingly a part of modern military operations, the line between military hardware and civilian hardware blurs, and, on the civilian side, there are at least five major companies and a dozen less prominent ones working on making universal worker robots a reality.

We're closer to "Skynet and self replicating robots and Terminators" now than we ever were at any point in time.

The issue of AI risk is that AI, unlike a virus or a climate event, is an intelligent adversary. Black Death could kill 50% of the population, but it didn't have a plan for finishing off the plague survivors. It was incapable of having a plan like that. An AI doesn't have this limitation.

Black Death was, effectively, one bioweapon. An AI can have one bioweapon, and then a backup bioweapon, then a backup backup bioweapon, and then a dozen more bioweapons designed to collapse ecosystems and disrupt human ability to establish a reliable food supply rather than kill humans directly - all deployed at the same time. With a production run of 200 million killer robots that will be ready just in time to greet those who managed to survive all of that. A crippling strike against human civilization, followed up by cleanup.

Humans are only this survivable because they can think their way out of issues and adapt to adversity. Most threats can't beat humans at that - humans adapt too quickly. AI could.

And instead of averting that we're spending our time worrying about some fantasy villain. Compared to things like bees that have been hear for millions of years, humans are very recent and so far it's not looking good for us.

Worse, the massive AI spending and energy use is making said environmental catastrophe happen faster.

That's no what the IPCC reports say. Even under the pessimistic scenarios, we're on track for "billions of humans die", not "earth becomes literally unlivable" (though some of it depends on how bad some feedback loops are).

Under the "countries respect their current pledges" scenario, we're heading for 2.8°C of warming, which is "floods and heatwaves everywhere, billions of refugees" level, not remotely close to extinction.

But that just means we won't all be wiped out. We need to understand when discussing global issues, such as this or like climate change that it's about prosperity and quality of life. We're trying to plan for a good life (for all people?).

AI doesn't have to turn us all into paper clips to make the world a really bad place.

I am specifically arguing hard against the concept that 100% of humans - or even 50% of humans could be killed by any mechanism at all. Humans would find it close to impossible. A computer program - come on.

This is the topic at hand - AI might wipe out humanity - it is being discussed all around the world by people who should know better - any it's the most fictionish of fictional fictions.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LAPa2jxoq3n63GzTr/some-ways-...

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/07/no-physical-substrate-...

As for self-replicating robots--it's no more bizarre than other technological developments which were successfully anticipated in advance, e.g. moon landings.

Well, in a narrow sense of "wiped out" (c.f. Terminator/SkyNet), sure.

But the deeper worry is better expressed this way: AI is now starting to accomplish things that defy explanation, or prediction. We don't know if Alignment is even a solvable problem as we thought we understood it.

So basically, yes: "humanity" is probably not at risk of extinction per se in a biological sense. Human culture, civilization? Who the fuck knows any more.

"Oh yea, we have weapons capable of sundering nations because everything is made from atoms"

"Oh, yea, there are invisible waves all around you that you can't see, can't feel, can't touch, but they can hold massive amounts of information. Also you can transfer that information to the other side of the planet in less than a second. We're talking text, pictures, movies"

"Movies, ya, we can record real life and play it back on this glass square".

"Oh, yea, we've conquered a ton of diseases, we can even see the teeny tiny little bits that make them. Oh, and for fun we can edit them and make them worse".

"Oh yea, we fly thru the sky all the time too. Like super fast and millions of us do it every day".

Our lives our unimaginable fiction. Just about everything we do compared to those people defy explanation in any reasonable amount of time. And now, suddenly it's "Don't worry, there isn't any more science or new things to find after this so this super smart and super capable thing that can connect directly to computers and machines and have them do things is completely and totally safe".

It's mass insanity.

We aren't going to get wiped out by a super intelligent AI, we are going to get wiped out by morons wielding intelligent toddlers with the power of a nation state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_156w0aYtU

The worst part of the interview was a long cringe inducing tangent about Jeff Epstein. Everything else was pretty grounded.

Really? Here's a longer Bill Gates quote (from https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... ):

Ezra Klein: "So why is anything needed beyond — and is anything needed beyond? — the simply natural incentives under capitalism and normal corporate reputational management?"

Bill Gates: "Well, I almost can’t believe you’re asking that. This is the most dangerous thing that humans have ever gone near. [...] You can take an open-source model that can create bioweapons and disable any monitoring of any kind, and this exists today. So no, there is no filtering of any kind. And so say you kill 100 million people — you want to use a lawsuit? I almost can’t keep a straight face."

https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/make-ai-work-for-everyone/re...

Gates' premise is basically that the upside of AI could be fantastic but the downside could be disastrous, if we don't have competent and proactive government intervention.

As an American, the idea that there will be competent government intervention into virtually anything currently or in the foreseeable future just seems laughable at this point.

The only regulation that would come would be regulatory capture by the AI companies with the goal of creating an environment win which no new competitors could arise. That is half of what this "take all jobs" and "threat of extinction" is about; the other half is perverse marketing to give the impression this stuff is so powerful you MUST invest.

AI can be very useful, but it is very refreshing to hear LeCun completely dismiss those threats.