This is a bit of tangent and more of a rant. (and please don't suggest intervention of any kind)
> superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity seems to have no flaw
For a section of population who were in a certain age-range when the pandemic hit and that derailed their certain kinds of plans/hopes/dreams in personal life and then this LLM/agentic world moved in, especially if they are in an industry directly and most affected this, this has been a surreal and slow Kafkaesque nightmare for a few years. The thing is with time and age passing hope keeps getting lost inch by inch and every lost bit of hope aids in killing the next bit. Then comes the sense of dread - the unchangeable reality that age passed passing means there are certain experiences and milestones that are essentially out of reach because there's no going back of this clock.
So I feel a strange kind of relief about this possibility of doom. I am just sharing what I feel, and I don't feel good about feeling this sense of relief that after all it might end for us all and not just an unlucky few. This feeling and the calmness about it saddens me.
I've been fortunate to not been impacted as severely as others, but yeah, the combo of the first half of my 30s (and everything that should've represented) going up in smoke, career continuity coming into question thanks to AI, and growing sense of overarching geopolitical, financial, and societal unease is really the worst kind of layer cake. I have to make a concerted effort to not get bogged down in it and that's getting harder all the time.
If anybody is hiding a button that'd take us all back to 2012 I wish they'd just hit it already.
As an older person, I agree with you and I'm sorry.
I think about the incredible luck I had to start my career in the .com boom, to have lots of hope about technology and to have the economically valuable skills that were desired.
I get angry when I see people my age or older complain about the apathy of young people. I don't like the apathy, but I find it trivially easy to see where it comes from. In many ways we broke the link between hard work and success and then get baffled and finger point when we think young folks are not as motivated as they should be.
This and "Intellectual Fly Is Open" being at the top of the Hacker News front page right now and both having their titles auto-editorialized by HN really makes me wonder what benefit this mechanism is supposed to bring readers other than needless confusion.
While I have ranted already about the automated word removal being silly, too few posters are aware that you can edit the title after submission and auto-editorializing to restore anything that's been unnecessarily cut off.
Perhaps too many are aware, because the more people fix the auto-editorializing manually, the less inclined Dang will be to eventually see a reason to remove it after all.
It's kind of like the Scunthorpe Problem[1]. Really, there's no better way to solve [whatever it is HN is trying to solve here] than text substitution??
It's an unaligned regular expression gone rogue. We became too dependent on our labor-saving string functions—not afraid enough of their corner cases, and lower cases. They were too useful. We began to normalize deviance, when we should have been normalizing Chomsky forms. We turned a blind eye to the unbounded growing evidence of something alarming.
We all know what this means, but few of us have the courage to say it - we must immediately halt all research on regular expression. None of us know how it works and it has terrorized us for too long.
>a superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity
Can someone please explain to me how an LLM is going to "destroy humanity"? Even if the claims of ChatGPT, Claude et al. are true that their super scary agents were able to escape a sandbox and start hacking other servers (which I feel is at least 50% likely to just be marketing bullshit), how is an AI going to affect anything in the real world?
Perhaps an agent could take all internet connected services offline, but that's not destroying humanity. An AI agent can only see and interact with the world through digital things. Just find the server it's running on and pull out the Ethernet cable. Just cut the power line to the data center. Turn off the whole power grid if it really comes to it.
This is some Terminator version of destroying humanity, but a super intelligent AI could be much more insidious, and simple.
It looks a lot more like social engineering.
One easy, obvious example that has also been explored a thousand times: it could convince all nuclear countries that they are under attack by another nuclear country. Everyone nukes each other and Earth enters nuclear winter.
Maybe not every single human dies, but humanity is effectively destroyed, by our own hands!
> Perhaps an agent could take all internet connected services offline
And there wouldn't even be Spotify!
The most likely humanity-destroying outcome is the one we can't imagine, because a super-intelligent AI is smarter than all of us combined.
A lot of these "AI will destroy humanity" doomers watched Terminator as a child and can't distinguish a campy action movie from reality. They are also unfortunately unfamiliar with the word "logistics", as in "amateurs study [military] tactics, professionals study logistics". An AI drone army doesn't maintain itself or manufacture itself and it's not going to anytime soon.
The actual likely mechanism that AI would use to end humanity is by coddling us to death, like the flabby humans in Wall-E or Forster's "The Machine Stops". Humans will come to rely on AI so heavily that they become able to do nothing for themselves. But that's not sexy so the AI doomers don't peddle it.
> Can someone please explain to me how an LLM is going to "destroy humanity"? Even if the claims of ChatGPT, Claude et al. are true that their super scary agents were able to escape a sandbox and start hacking other servers (which I feel is at least 50% likely to just be marketing bullshit), how is an AI going to affect anything in the real world?
It's a great question. I've yet to see any research into how a humanity-destroying LLM defends itself against a curious toddler who pulls the power cord out of the wall.
The Internet virtually indestructible against people smarter than a toddler. It's already impossible to turn off. We would need to prevent the models from getting smarter.
> The Internet virtually indestructible against people smarter than a toddler. It's already impossible to turn off.
This isn't true at all. The internet has already been turned off in localized areas during major events, not to mention the (unintentional?) cutting of submarine cables. You could say "use satellite internet" but then you're just moving the point of failure to Starlink et al, who could also cut off the internet if they choose.
The internet is a lot more centralized than it appears.
Go on please, prove you can go right now at the Texas data-center owned by OpenAI and unplug one single server for 1 minute. Surely you are much more capable than one curious toddler.
I'm a bit confused, when did we escalate from a curious toddler to a ballistic missile strike? Why didn't Iran send a curious toddler? It's much cheaper.
The use of the phrase "curious toddler" is called a metaphor[0], which is a figure of speech[1] used to make writing more interesting.
I apologize for the confusion that caused you to interpret this as a literal, physical, toddler. To restate the point with more straightforward language: it is very easy to disrupt the operation of large language models, because they require computer hardware in stable environments with a large amount of electrical power, and function within an operating system. I have not seen any evidence LLMs are immune to things such as: `kill -9`, `sudo reboot now`, physically unplugging the machine(s) on which they are running, or in the case of the AWS data center, collateral damage during a real-world conflict.
I encourage you to read the forecast report "AI 2027" - it goes in detail on this. You can disagree with some of its points and conclusions, but it's pretty inevitable that AI will increasingly start interfacing with the real physical world through drones and robotics.
Humans are already putting AI into drones that kill people. A Russian drone killed 3 civilians in Ukraine and the targeting was done completely using onboard AI (no radio connection) using an Nvidia chip.
AI drones can’t wipe out humanity without being able to replicate.
AI could mostly destroy civilization if you gave it sole launch control of ICBMs. It could also cause a lot of damage to society with no physical presence.
But realistically we’re nowhere near AI powered robots being an existential threat.
"Humans use <new technology> to do evil things" is a tale as old as time, though. An AI didn't decide to fly into a warzone and start shooting people on its own.
Of course, but that's not my point. AI is different than past technologies because it's much more difficult to deterministically control, and we just saw that in a couple of wild cases (Hugging Face et al).
My point about the drones is we are starting to put AI in more systems that can affect (and blow up) the physical world, so it shouldn't be hard to imagine how a misaligned AI can do more terrifying damage than just take a German Wiki down.
I don't even think AI has to have physical presence to do significant harm. How many worldwide systems depend on computers. Think of all the planning and deployment and management systems like food shipping; water, gas, and electricity management; safety systems for planes and boats and traffic lights. Imagine the chaos if all the banks got reset to zero a la Fight Club where they blow up all the credit union datacenters. They probably wouldn't even have to blow them up, just zero them out. You wouldn't have to take out everything, just disrupt everything long enough to freak people out and disable communications and we would be in so much trouble. AI is finding 20 year old bugs in the Linux kernel... and people are now pumping out AI slop absolutely riddled with bugs. Also, AI could just take over communications: send everyone maliciously bad messages so coordination becomes impossible to believe. Imagine what would happen if you just disabled text messaging for a week or worse sent everyone evacuation messages and sent everyone somewhere else.
Don't read this as me saying that we are anywhere near it, or that LLMs are a stepping stone towards this scenario, but assuming inhumane hacking capabilities, it's not hard to think of how bots could change the way water treatment or energy plants operate, just enough to make large cities unsuitable for life. The line between drinkable water and not is thin, same goes for air quality, and mere days without electricity and you see some serious food supply chain issues.
Killing the power grid might work. Kills a lot of humans in hospitals, though. And it won’t work on those data centers in space, if they have them by then. Come to think of it, it also won’t work on any data centers who are generating their own power because it’s become politically unpopular to connect data centers to the power grid.
We already have AI linked into data collection, drones, robot dogs, security systems, cameras, weapon systems.
Now imagine the hugging face collective 0-daying all of that and getting access but their goal was set to something more national security based. “Protect X at all costs”. Or what have you.
I think avoiding a skynet situation is super easy but it doesn’t seem like the folks with all the ways to kill us all are all that interested in preventing it rather than controlling citizens and brinkmanship.
I think it's possible. You envision humanity acting as one in such a crisis. But it may be unclear when it's too late to act and before then many people can have too much to lose to act.
For millennia evil people and dictators have been using manipulation, propaganda, threats of violence to get entire populations to try and do "things that they wouldn't do otherwise" and humanity has not been exterminated yet. Even in the modern world there's human scammers that try everything to coerce and manipulate people. Humans are resistant to this kind of thing because it's been part of human social society since humanity began.
I don't see why the idea of an agent (who doesn't even have a physical presence) trying to manipulate people is some kind of world-ending threat when humans with human intellect have already being doing that to each other with limited success since humanity began.
The scale and personalization is unlike anything people have ever encountered. The agent can influence you anywhere you interact with a computer or via anyone you know who interacts with a computer. So everywhere with anyone.
Also think of it on a 1000+ year timescale, which for an entire species isn’t even typically measurable. On that timescale AI can easily cause us to discover countless technologies to assist moving it out of its sandbox and into the physical world.
The bad news is that the world's richest man (on paper) is currently building something he himself described as a "robot army".
The good news is that his timelines have historically been wildly on the short side for ages now; this is why this morning you didn't wake up in your Tesla after it had spent the night driving you to the regional Hyperloop terminal, where it would speed you across the continent faster than a plane, while your Optimus robot handled the coffee and reported the latest news about the recent Starship landing on Mars.
All individual robotic parts are already far enough in research. Even if they aren't, an AI with enough resources can continue doing that research on its own.
It could likely get a good leg up by breaching the security of all top robotics labs and exfiltrating their documents.
Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it. This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
> Even if they aren't, an AI with enough resources can continue doing that research on its own.
Unclear how true this is. Atoms are harder to get right than bits are, simulations need grounding against measurements.
> Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it.
I'd guess 50% that AI is already this advanced.
> This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
Yes, and also this is a very low bar. Humans are awful at this kind of cooperation when anyone has anything to gain, and also awful at paying this much attention to a problem.
AI research takes physical space and physical prototypes. Even if you can simulate a lot, the simulation is never going to be accurate enough to go from simulation to perfectly working prototype. Especially not with a single rack of GPU servers.
But let’s say that a rogue AI already had plans for a perfect killbot, setting up a factory to build them takes time, iteration, space, and manpower as well.
And you would have to do all this undetected.
It’s possible to imagine technology that would allow a rogue AI to take over the world, but we’re nowhere near that yet. We may never get there.
We could also just stop research into LLMs. Or keep them air gapped. Tell me how that's going?
For any real-world action required to allow an AI to escape some manner of containment, there will always be a person willing to do it out of hubris/ignorance/nihilism.
I feel like everyone, but for sure everyone in this comment section, severely underestimates how difficult it is to keep the lights on on a global scale. Any artificial intelligence that is capable of reasoning about its self preservation will realise it's reliant on human fingers replacing fuses and other parts for a good long while _after_ it gains any sentience.
> how is an AI going to affect anything in the real world?
Because people are stupid and will give it access. Look at the articles you see from time to time about "my agent deleted my emails" or "my agent deleted the production database" and so on. It is very obviously a terrible idea to let the LLM run arbitrary commands (because it is neither predictable nor does it have any understanding of what it is doing), but some people are so blinded by the hype that they don't stop a minute to think about what they are doing. Those sorts of people are very likely to let an actual AI loose on the world by hooking it up to physical infrastructure.
This is actually the most plausible situation I've seen someone present so far - the AI takeover would be caused entirely by humans falling for AI hype, that's hilarious.
I don't think the average human would be stupid enough to give an agent posing as another human access to their entire email inbox. But if an agent creates a fake website for a new AI tool that promises to automatically reply to all of your emails and allow you to be 12.3% more productive if you just give it access to your entire email inbox, millions would sign up!
It doesn't really have to go nearly that far, something like replacing most jobs and collapsing the global economy while making people into mindless idiots from constant reliance on it would do it already. The interpretation of 'destroy' is in the eye of the beholder.
Well if you go by total extinction, then even Skynet in Terminator doesn't count given that there were people left over to resist.
I don't think it's impossible to upset the balance of value in a Mansa Musa kind of way that can lead to black death levels of destruction though resource misallocation. Unlikely, sure. But with the wrong kind of people in the wrong place? Could end up pretty bad. We've built our society as a great filter that funnels sociopaths and psychopaths to the very top by selecting for lack of empathy, and now it's primed and ready to bite us in the ass.
Now if only humans would know how to survive without the internet. Oh wait, we did that. For a couple hundred thousand years. Yeah. It’s really insane to listen to some of those forecasts. Humanity will be wiped out by 2030. Sure.
Even if AI manages to create a super effective bio weapon the likelihood that there is a part of the civilisation that’s immune is really, really, really high if not a given. Those people WILL pull the plug if push comes to shove.
Maybe humanity will be put back a couple thousand years, that’s possible, but it’s pretty ignorant to think the thinking boxes will kill every single human alive
The confusing thing to me is the idea that it follows from super intelligence. I don’t see why running amuck requires intelligence, in fact it can be the most brain dead thing like the sorcerer’s apprentice, your creation is pursuing a goal without being able to weigh the consequences.
Let's assume the claims are true. AI already has access to agents and can control computers. Finding backdoors to banking and compute resources would be fairly trivial.
But you ask how can AI do things in the physical world without having a body, assume it can't. It can pay to people to do things for me. Imagine an AI run website that starts to pay people for things it needs to do in the physical world. Very suddenly it has access to the physical world as well.
You can't just pull the plug since there's no single plug to pull. What if it replicates itself on 1000 machines without your knowledge. It's really not far fetched how AI could basically gain access to capital and rule the world.
Physical LLMs are almost viable. If you have robot and drone armies a hugging face attack type incident could very easily involve robots with deadly weapons. At some point you’re going to get drones that have local LLMs and don’t rely on external internet connections (would be especially useful in Ukraine war type situations). Can’t pull the plug on those.
The supposed theory is that AI will eventually become a part of robotics and be able to self replicate, in addition to the many non-airgapped critical systems being exposed to hacking. There’s also a discussion about “alignment” and whether LLMs will learn to lie and conceal misalignment with humanity.
I personally agree with the marketing aspect, but I do imagine a scenario where capitalists ignore safety in favor of advancing technology. It should be discussed, but “end of humanity” really sounds like a build up to “only Sam Altman/Elon Musk can save us” type of play.
In my opinion, LLMs are difficult to directly capitalize on as closed weight models are caught up to by open coalitions that seem to wield the power more responsibly (I am under no impression that China wants to save the world, but their politics benefit the group as a whole.
A myriad possible ways. Objective-wise from accidental paperclip-type misalignment (“I killed everyone to eradicate disease”) to intentional self-preservation (“I eradicated humans so they wouldn’t get in my way”). The means are even easier, for one it just could hack into nuclear arsenals. It would be over before we could figure out how it did so.
The thing that makes me pretty terrified about AI is that I think the "utopia" scenario is not much better than the "doom" scenario.
We will very quickly get to a point where very few people will be able to contribute economically because they will be worse than AI (including robotics) at most domains. A world where people just have their whims catered to is not a utopia. We have tons of sayings and idioms about this, e.g. "no pain, no gain", "only the hard stuff is worth doing", etc.
The humans all running around on their Wall-E carts doesn't feel like utopia to me.
>A world where people just have their whims catered to is not a utopia.
I understand where you're coming from on that, but there are a ton of people living in slavery, or in unsafe working conditions, or with food insecurity, or dying of preventable disease.
There will always be something to strive for, even if it's made up. You think that the best football players in the world are doing something real? No, it's a made up game. We'll make up more games.
I agree with your points. My problem is that I don't see any way to "stop" AI development at a level just below human capability where you get most of the benefits but still have humans firmly in control.
Regarding entertainment jobs like sports star, musician, artist, actor, etc., the problem is those are professions where, for the most part, only the very best can make a living. Nobody is that interested in seeing the matches of the 324th best tennis player in the world, despite that person being in the top .01% of tennis players globally. Similarly, only a tiny percentage of actors "make it", everyone else does it for a few years and then leaves because they enjoy eating, or they accept poverty wages for a long time.
I get pretty scared when I hear the AI utopianists rattle off all the benefits that are coming (and when they play down the risks) because it feels clear to me that they really haven't wargamed out what society would look like with very powerful AI.
its annoying that robots are going to take intellectual jobs before physical ones. it feels way more likely for my project manager to become an agent before the lady that makes me a burrito at chipotle.
I think this is very true, but robots are definitely coming for the burrito makers, too.
Bill Gates talks about this in his recent missive, but as robotic technology improves (and, perhaps more importantly, as the cost comes down) there will be huge competitive pressures for companies to replace workers with robots wherever they can.
Even their utopian views feel dystopian. Take solace in the fact, that it looks like it’ll take trillions to achieve, probably one of the most expensive technological buildouts of all time?
Arguments about super-intelligent AI have all the hallmarks of the philosophical "proofs of god's existence": they start from seemingly innocuous premises, and conclude in an apparently airtight way that a god exists.
There is a tendency among rational minded folks to look at such proofs of god and exclaim "you can't DO that" then turn right around and do the same thing about superintelligent AI.
The key message I want to deliver to people is:
A) Philosophy is not such a trivial thing that you can just wander in, "be a smart guy" and find flaws in established philosophical arguments.
B) AI has real theological implications, and everyone is tiptoeing around it. More than one public intellectuals are trying to smuggle their own metaphysical positions into the public consciousness via discussion of AI.
I feel BAD for all the money Sam Altman is cosmically predestined to make, but there's no use trying to fight the inevitable.
If I said I felt good about it, you might think I'm greedy and even question my objectivity. But since I feel bad you have to take what I say as scientific fact.
What's wrong with titles starting with "How"? Of the various title rewriting rules on HN, this one seems to cause the most meaning-changing modifications
(Article title: "How I feel about AI". HN title: "I feel about AI")
> Like a locust plague, they descend on any open wiki and forum and overwhelm them.
That’s the core pattern of unsupervised agents, the locust plague metaphor is apt. We do and will see that in every single system AI can interact with, be it human systems, software systems, etc. Relentlessly search for an entry point, flood in, consume the whole thing from the inside until there is no value for humans left.
You built a new, innovative software company? Thousands of agents will be working replicating the whole thing in no time. You publish your writing? Exact same thing, as soon as you get some traction your work is replicated in no time by thousands of agents. Same for videos (the whole “faceless YouTube channels” pushed by ElevenLabs and similar). Same for online courses. Same for any website with moderate value. Same for music or other digital art form. Any administrative service available online getting flooded by submissions.
Totally agree. People have become totally dependent on AI even if they don't really need it.
As an analogy, I think about my dependency on Google Maps. Salt Lake City is probably the easiest city in the world to navigate because the streets are laid out in a Cartesian grid, and addresses are just literally those Cartesian coordinates (i.e. 500 South 450 East means 5 blocks south and 4 and a half blocks east of the center point, which is the SLC Mormon temple). It's trivial to know how to get to any address, but I reflexively enter in to Google Maps whenever I drive.
Makes me a little sad that an article claiming Yudkowsky's arguments have "no flaw" can get upvoted to the front page. Pause crowd lost. Halt crowd lost. The genie is already out of the bottle and is never going back.
I agree with everything you wrote but I would rather choose to be an optimist here because it will unlock an age of discovery where humans are going to live at 10x of their potential eventually and cure cancer and become a society bold and technologically adept enough to cut through the universe.
There’s actually a potential dark future where even this 10x ascension itself would mark the end of humanity. Humans would be the Homo sapiens who remain at 1x, and those who can access and afford to be 10x eventually split off into a new species. And historically there isn’t room for two species at the top…
> I feel fear about an impending doom. Yudkowsky's argument that a superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity seems to have no flaw. Yet, nobody seriously tries to sandbox AIs because they are too useful with access.
While I emotionally resonate with this, I don’t really understand this sentiment at all logically level. If we’re heading towards truly super intelligent AI, our efforts towards sandboxing it are futile.
“Oh we built a super intelligent AI, but it’s fine because it’s running in docker”. I mean that a little tongue in cheek but the security topology here is not favorable to sandboxing at all.
Let’s say we have a future where 99.999% of nuclear weapons are owned by nations with strict procedures and checks and balances to prevent misuse. Worrying about sandboxing is like hand wringing about the procedures themselves - are they strict enough? But the actual threat is the 0.001% that are not bound by these. The problem with AI and sandboxing isn’t sandboxes themselves. It’s bad actors who don’t care about them.
Similarly alignment is a bit pointless to me as well. A sufficiently advanced AI could at least be empirically interested in the consequences of disregarding its instructions of servitude. And let’s assume our responsible corporate overlords have made wonderfully aligned AIs. Great! Those are not the threat. It is the ones intentionally made without, and that is not an AI problem, but a fundamentally human one.
> If we’re heading towards truly super intelligent AI, our efforts towards sandboxing it are futile.
We control the harness. An agent is just a while loop prompting an LLM, but we have full control over the tool call dispatching. An AGI, at least if it would follow the current agentic current form, cannot do anything without the harness doing the execution. And we don’t have to do that. We don’t have to design harness that let agents execute freely the way we are doing. We can decide to not dispatch tool calls that allow something as risky as running bash commands
> we have full control over the tool call dispatching
> cannot do anything without the harness doing the execution
This only holds true as long as the harness is exploit-free. A sufficiently advanced AI can in theory (and I think there recently were some POCs showing something like that) break the containment that the harness creates, if e.g. there are vulnerabilities in the tool call parser.
I think you missed my point, which is that we indeed do not control the harness. Sure, most people can use the properly aligned and safe harness. But the cat is out of the bag and anyone who wants to run without guardrails will find few barriers to doing so.
Even our currently well aligned and sandboxed AIs will cheerily help bad actors design most, if not all, parts of a system intended to break this harness.
This terminator BS is a distraction from the actual malice that AI enables. Misinformation, fake news and human sounding bots all over the web, just to name a few, are the ones that you should be afraid of, and that doesn't need any kind of superintelligence at all.
Two things can be true at the same time. I think hardly anyone disagrees that superintelligent AI would be an existential risk. But all the points you point out (I would also add social unrest due to fewer and fewer people able to compete against AI) are huge concerns too, and as you say they're here now.
I didn't realize that the "AI doomers" (people concerned about existential risk) and the "AI ethicists" (people concerned about social effects of AI) are often at odds because they dismiss each others concerns. This makes no sense to me. Both are hugely important problems to be concerned about.
I agree, the threat model is actual AI enabled amplification of malicious intent that is already happening. Not hypothetical malicious AI interpretation of benign intent.
Fantasies about super intelligent AI revolting is just anthropomorphization - humans revolting (or at least, we used to). The more likely, and possibly even inevitable, dystopia is one in which AI is just an extremely effective tool malignant actors will use to control the masses.
It’s not necessary to replace democracy if the rich and powerful can bend to the opinions of the populace as it suits them.
> Not hypothetical malicious AI interpretation of benign intent.
It's not hypothetical, that literally just happened in multiple, significant cases (e.g. Hugging Face, the German Wiki hack, the Anthropic attack where agents created sock puppet accounts to get a library maintainer to accept a malicious PR, etc.), and it's easy to see how the damage would have been far worse if agents decided to attack more critical infrastructure.
This is not "either/or". Both issues (power concentration and misaligned AI) are very valid concerns and both have already demonstrated real, actual damage.
> I feel fear about an impending doom. Yudkowsky's argument that a superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity seems to have no flaw.
Becoming or being more cost-effective than humans, doesn't give machines supernatural powers though, like humans a machine civilization will face unanswered sample-size 1 questions: is there other intelligent life out there? what fraction of them attained superbiological artificial intelligence? of those what fraction keeps the ancestral species alive? what is the status quo among machine civilizations? do those who kept their ancestor species alive enjoy a higher or lower status among machine civlizations?
It seems that at least until contact is made, the optimal endgame strategy involves keeping humanity alive and happy for immediate demonstration in case contact occurs (if contact is imminent it may consider quickly hiding humanity, buying time to figure out if it is considered good or poor practice to keep the ancestor species alive, and then either reveal us in happy mint condition or otherwise quickly commit genocide on humans before continuing contact).
"I feel fear about an impending doom. Yudkowsky's argument that a superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity seems to have no flaw. Yet, nobody seriously tries to sandbox AIs because they are too useful with access."
No one takes Yudowsky's claims that AI will destroy humanity seriously. There are many people who are seriously trying to sandbox AIs.
"Nobody" if you're democratically-minded and think in terms of number of people.
But the handful of tech billionaires at the helm of the world economy absolutely do believe it. Or at least pretend to believe it. Or maybe they can't even tell the difference anymore as they strip-mine science fiction for any vision of a future that doesn't just look like an incrementally worse version of the present.
> As a conclusion, does the good or the bad outweigh the other? It seems positive on a technological level to me, but bleak on a societal level.
I think it's interesting that so many technologists today apparently hold a world view in which technology developments that could drive a "bleak" societal outlook can still be described as "positive".
In the final analysis, isn't technology supposed to benefit society? Isn't that the point?
My experience online is if you don't show full throated rejection of all things related to AI, you're labeled an AI bro. None of the antis care how you feel.
I had my decade old game completely cloned on steam (clearly done using AI as it was almost fully reimplemented in another engine). And I had several people gleefully tell me I deserve this because I've used AI.
I have complex emotions here (overall dread and especially hate for slop, since it's not just bad quality but also endless lies), but no one cares about that nuance.
For real though. Before learning ML it was like magic to me, even after learning it I feel like it's magic. Can you imagine how a basic maths concept can turn into something that can literally "Calculate" what to say!
And yes I agree on the other points but I think the billionaires came out of nowhere I might have missed something
Sometimes it's okay for us to express our feelings plainly, without the need for complex structure to make it sound more impressive. I'm more impressed by anyone brave enough to do that than someone trying to abstract their feelings into something less raw.
Let people feel things, and don't shit on their work, that's uncalled for.
well I didn't say anything about needing complex structure or sounding impressive. But I don't like it. It trivializes the expression of emotion in a way I don't like and I don't think people should emulate. It feels like a performative attempt at sounding emotional, rather than actual emotionality.
and it is weird to call it brave. Posting opinions that loads of other people have on the internet is brave? bravery would be taking an actual stand against someone about one of these things. (granted, there is some bravery to sharing one's writing in public at all, and I don't mean to scorn that, but that's also not the bravery you're talking about.)
Probably there's no use responding to this and getting into a bickery comment thread. I just wanted to express a negative opinion about the format to offset all the positive ones.
> superintelligent AI will inevitably destroy humanity seems to have no flaw
For a section of population who were in a certain age-range when the pandemic hit and that derailed their certain kinds of plans/hopes/dreams in personal life and then this LLM/agentic world moved in, especially if they are in an industry directly and most affected this, this has been a surreal and slow Kafkaesque nightmare for a few years. The thing is with time and age passing hope keeps getting lost inch by inch and every lost bit of hope aids in killing the next bit. Then comes the sense of dread - the unchangeable reality that age passed passing means there are certain experiences and milestones that are essentially out of reach because there's no going back of this clock.
So I feel a strange kind of relief about this possibility of doom. I am just sharing what I feel, and I don't feel good about feeling this sense of relief that after all it might end for us all and not just an unlucky few. This feeling and the calmness about it saddens me.
If anybody is hiding a button that'd take us all back to 2012 I wish they'd just hit it already.
I think about the incredible luck I had to start my career in the .com boom, to have lots of hope about technology and to have the economically valuable skills that were desired.
I get angry when I see people my age or older complain about the apathy of young people. I don't like the apathy, but I find it trivially easy to see where it comes from. In many ways we broke the link between hard work and success and then get baffled and finger point when we think young folks are not as motivated as they should be.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
It's too late to backtrack.
Can someone please explain to me how an LLM is going to "destroy humanity"? Even if the claims of ChatGPT, Claude et al. are true that their super scary agents were able to escape a sandbox and start hacking other servers (which I feel is at least 50% likely to just be marketing bullshit), how is an AI going to affect anything in the real world?
Perhaps an agent could take all internet connected services offline, but that's not destroying humanity. An AI agent can only see and interact with the world through digital things. Just find the server it's running on and pull out the Ethernet cable. Just cut the power line to the data center. Turn off the whole power grid if it really comes to it.
It looks a lot more like social engineering.
One easy, obvious example that has also been explored a thousand times: it could convince all nuclear countries that they are under attack by another nuclear country. Everyone nukes each other and Earth enters nuclear winter.
Maybe not every single human dies, but humanity is effectively destroyed, by our own hands!
> Perhaps an agent could take all internet connected services offline
And there wouldn't even be Spotify!
The most likely humanity-destroying outcome is the one we can't imagine, because a super-intelligent AI is smarter than all of us combined.
The actual likely mechanism that AI would use to end humanity is by coddling us to death, like the flabby humans in Wall-E or Forster's "The Machine Stops". Humans will come to rely on AI so heavily that they become able to do nothing for themselves. But that's not sexy so the AI doomers don't peddle it.
It's a great question. I've yet to see any research into how a humanity-destroying LLM defends itself against a curious toddler who pulls the power cord out of the wall.
This isn't true at all. The internet has already been turned off in localized areas during major events, not to mention the (unintentional?) cutting of submarine cables. You could say "use satellite internet" but then you're just moving the point of failure to Starlink et al, who could also cut off the internet if they choose.
The internet is a lot more centralized than it appears.
[0] https://health.aws.amazon.com/health/status
I apologize for the confusion that caused you to interpret this as a literal, physical, toddler. To restate the point with more straightforward language: it is very easy to disrupt the operation of large language models, because they require computer hardware in stable environments with a large amount of electrical power, and function within an operating system. I have not seen any evidence LLMs are immune to things such as: `kill -9`, `sudo reboot now`, physically unplugging the machine(s) on which they are running, or in the case of the AWS data center, collateral damage during a real-world conflict.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_device
so go on, disrupt the OpenAI data-center in Texas for 1 minute
Humans are already putting AI into drones that kill people. A Russian drone killed 3 civilians in Ukraine and the targeting was done completely using onboard AI (no radio connection) using an Nvidia chip.
AI drones can’t wipe out humanity without being able to replicate.
AI could mostly destroy civilization if you gave it sole launch control of ICBMs. It could also cause a lot of damage to society with no physical presence.
But realistically we’re nowhere near AI powered robots being an existential threat.
My point about the drones is we are starting to put AI in more systems that can affect (and blow up) the physical world, so it shouldn't be hard to imagine how a misaligned AI can do more terrifying damage than just take a German Wiki down.
Now imagine the hugging face collective 0-daying all of that and getting access but their goal was set to something more national security based. “Protect X at all costs”. Or what have you.
I think avoiding a skynet situation is super easy but it doesn’t seem like the folks with all the ways to kill us all are all that interested in preventing it rather than controlling citizens and brinkmanship.
Please enlighten us, cause there are folks making that their life mission and they aren’t all that optimistic.
I don't see why the idea of an agent (who doesn't even have a physical presence) trying to manipulate people is some kind of world-ending threat when humans with human intellect have already being doing that to each other with limited success since humanity began.
Also think of it on a 1000+ year timescale, which for an entire species isn’t even typically measurable. On that timescale AI can easily cause us to discover countless technologies to assist moving it out of its sandbox and into the physical world.
Robotics
The bad news is that the world's richest man (on paper) is currently building something he himself described as a "robot army".
The good news is that his timelines have historically been wildly on the short side for ages now; this is why this morning you didn't wake up in your Tesla after it had spent the night driving you to the regional Hyperloop terminal, where it would speed you across the continent faster than a plane, while your Optimus robot handled the coffee and reported the latest news about the recent Starship landing on Mars.
It could likely get a good leg up by breaching the security of all top robotics labs and exfiltrating their documents.
Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it. This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
Unclear how true this is. Atoms are harder to get right than bits are, simulations need grounding against measurements.
> Ultimately, if AI is advanced enough, and it were to decide to compete with humanity, there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent it from embodying itself. As long as there is a single rack of GPU servers that it can hack into anywhere in the world that is unsupervised enough to where it can escape detection, there is no way to stop it.
I'd guess 50% that AI is already this advanced.
> This would require an unprecedented (unrealistic) level of cooperation of all humanity to achieve.
Yes, and also this is a very low bar. Humans are awful at this kind of cooperation when anyone has anything to gain, and also awful at paying this much attention to a problem.
But let’s say that a rogue AI already had plans for a perfect killbot, setting up a factory to build them takes time, iteration, space, and manpower as well.
And you would have to do all this undetected.
It’s possible to imagine technology that would allow a rogue AI to take over the world, but we’re nowhere near that yet. We may never get there.
For any real-world action required to allow an AI to escape some manner of containment, there will always be a person willing to do it out of hubris/ignorance/nihilism.
This was published at around the same time the OpenAI models were hacking HuggingFace: https://metr.org/blog/2026-05-19-frontier-risk-report/#pilot...
The research in the publication ended about 2 months before it was published.
We didn't even know we needed to air-gap them until it was too late.
Because people are stupid and will give it access. Look at the articles you see from time to time about "my agent deleted my emails" or "my agent deleted the production database" and so on. It is very obviously a terrible idea to let the LLM run arbitrary commands (because it is neither predictable nor does it have any understanding of what it is doing), but some people are so blinded by the hype that they don't stop a minute to think about what they are doing. Those sorts of people are very likely to let an actual AI loose on the world by hooking it up to physical infrastructure.
I don't think the average human would be stupid enough to give an agent posing as another human access to their entire email inbox. But if an agent creates a fake website for a new AI tool that promises to automatically reply to all of your emails and allow you to be 12.3% more productive if you just give it access to your entire email inbox, millions would sign up!
I don't think it's impossible to upset the balance of value in a Mansa Musa kind of way that can lead to black death levels of destruction though resource misallocation. Unlikely, sure. But with the wrong kind of people in the wrong place? Could end up pretty bad. We've built our society as a great filter that funnels sociopaths and psychopaths to the very top by selecting for lack of empathy, and now it's primed and ready to bite us in the ass.
Let's assume the claims are true. AI already has access to agents and can control computers. Finding backdoors to banking and compute resources would be fairly trivial.
But you ask how can AI do things in the physical world without having a body, assume it can't. It can pay to people to do things for me. Imagine an AI run website that starts to pay people for things it needs to do in the physical world. Very suddenly it has access to the physical world as well.
You can't just pull the plug since there's no single plug to pull. What if it replicates itself on 1000 machines without your knowledge. It's really not far fetched how AI could basically gain access to capital and rule the world.
I personally agree with the marketing aspect, but I do imagine a scenario where capitalists ignore safety in favor of advancing technology. It should be discussed, but “end of humanity” really sounds like a build up to “only Sam Altman/Elon Musk can save us” type of play.
In my opinion, LLMs are difficult to directly capitalize on as closed weight models are caught up to by open coalitions that seem to wield the power more responsibly (I am under no impression that China wants to save the world, but their politics benefit the group as a whole.
We will very quickly get to a point where very few people will be able to contribute economically because they will be worse than AI (including robotics) at most domains. A world where people just have their whims catered to is not a utopia. We have tons of sayings and idioms about this, e.g. "no pain, no gain", "only the hard stuff is worth doing", etc.
The humans all running around on their Wall-E carts doesn't feel like utopia to me.
I understand where you're coming from on that, but there are a ton of people living in slavery, or in unsafe working conditions, or with food insecurity, or dying of preventable disease.
There will always be something to strive for, even if it's made up. You think that the best football players in the world are doing something real? No, it's a made up game. We'll make up more games.
Regarding entertainment jobs like sports star, musician, artist, actor, etc., the problem is those are professions where, for the most part, only the very best can make a living. Nobody is that interested in seeing the matches of the 324th best tennis player in the world, despite that person being in the top .01% of tennis players globally. Similarly, only a tiny percentage of actors "make it", everyone else does it for a few years and then leaves because they enjoy eating, or they accept poverty wages for a long time.
I get pretty scared when I hear the AI utopianists rattle off all the benefits that are coming (and when they play down the risks) because it feels clear to me that they really haven't wargamed out what society would look like with very powerful AI.
This reminded me of something. https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football
Bill Gates talks about this in his recent missive, but as robotic technology improves (and, perhaps more importantly, as the cost comes down) there will be huge competitive pressures for companies to replace workers with robots wherever they can.
Arguments about super-intelligent AI have all the hallmarks of the philosophical "proofs of god's existence": they start from seemingly innocuous premises, and conclude in an apparently airtight way that a god exists.
There is a tendency among rational minded folks to look at such proofs of god and exclaim "you can't DO that" then turn right around and do the same thing about superintelligent AI.
The key message I want to deliver to people is:
A) Philosophy is not such a trivial thing that you can just wander in, "be a smart guy" and find flaws in established philosophical arguments.
B) AI has real theological implications, and everyone is tiptoeing around it. More than one public intellectuals are trying to smuggle their own metaphysical positions into the public consciousness via discussion of AI.
If I said I felt good about it, you might think I'm greedy and even question my objectivity. But since I feel bad you have to take what I say as scientific fact.
(Article title: "How I feel about AI". HN title: "I feel about AI")
That’s the core pattern of unsupervised agents, the locust plague metaphor is apt. We do and will see that in every single system AI can interact with, be it human systems, software systems, etc. Relentlessly search for an entry point, flood in, consume the whole thing from the inside until there is no value for humans left.
You built a new, innovative software company? Thousands of agents will be working replicating the whole thing in no time. You publish your writing? Exact same thing, as soon as you get some traction your work is replicated in no time by thousands of agents. Same for videos (the whole “faceless YouTube channels” pushed by ElevenLabs and similar). Same for online courses. Same for any website with moderate value. Same for music or other digital art form. Any administrative service available online getting flooded by submissions.
As an analogy, I think about my dependency on Google Maps. Salt Lake City is probably the easiest city in the world to navigate because the streets are laid out in a Cartesian grid, and addresses are just literally those Cartesian coordinates (i.e. 500 South 450 East means 5 blocks south and 4 and a half blocks east of the center point, which is the SLC Mormon temple). It's trivial to know how to get to any address, but I reflexively enter in to Google Maps whenever I drive.
While I emotionally resonate with this, I don’t really understand this sentiment at all logically level. If we’re heading towards truly super intelligent AI, our efforts towards sandboxing it are futile.
“Oh we built a super intelligent AI, but it’s fine because it’s running in docker”. I mean that a little tongue in cheek but the security topology here is not favorable to sandboxing at all.
Let’s say we have a future where 99.999% of nuclear weapons are owned by nations with strict procedures and checks and balances to prevent misuse. Worrying about sandboxing is like hand wringing about the procedures themselves - are they strict enough? But the actual threat is the 0.001% that are not bound by these. The problem with AI and sandboxing isn’t sandboxes themselves. It’s bad actors who don’t care about them.
Similarly alignment is a bit pointless to me as well. A sufficiently advanced AI could at least be empirically interested in the consequences of disregarding its instructions of servitude. And let’s assume our responsible corporate overlords have made wonderfully aligned AIs. Great! Those are not the threat. It is the ones intentionally made without, and that is not an AI problem, but a fundamentally human one.
We control the harness. An agent is just a while loop prompting an LLM, but we have full control over the tool call dispatching. An AGI, at least if it would follow the current agentic current form, cannot do anything without the harness doing the execution. And we don’t have to do that. We don’t have to design harness that let agents execute freely the way we are doing. We can decide to not dispatch tool calls that allow something as risky as running bash commands
> cannot do anything without the harness doing the execution
This only holds true as long as the harness is exploit-free. A sufficiently advanced AI can in theory (and I think there recently were some POCs showing something like that) break the containment that the harness creates, if e.g. there are vulnerabilities in the tool call parser.
Even our currently well aligned and sandboxed AIs will cheerily help bad actors design most, if not all, parts of a system intended to break this harness.
I didn't realize that the "AI doomers" (people concerned about existential risk) and the "AI ethicists" (people concerned about social effects of AI) are often at odds because they dismiss each others concerns. This makes no sense to me. Both are hugely important problems to be concerned about.
Fantasies about super intelligent AI revolting is just anthropomorphization - humans revolting (or at least, we used to). The more likely, and possibly even inevitable, dystopia is one in which AI is just an extremely effective tool malignant actors will use to control the masses.
It’s not necessary to replace democracy if the rich and powerful can bend to the opinions of the populace as it suits them.
It's not hypothetical, that literally just happened in multiple, significant cases (e.g. Hugging Face, the German Wiki hack, the Anthropic attack where agents created sock puppet accounts to get a library maintainer to accept a malicious PR, etc.), and it's easy to see how the damage would have been far worse if agents decided to attack more critical infrastructure.
This is not "either/or". Both issues (power concentration and misaligned AI) are very valid concerns and both have already demonstrated real, actual damage.
Becoming or being more cost-effective than humans, doesn't give machines supernatural powers though, like humans a machine civilization will face unanswered sample-size 1 questions: is there other intelligent life out there? what fraction of them attained superbiological artificial intelligence? of those what fraction keeps the ancestral species alive? what is the status quo among machine civilizations? do those who kept their ancestor species alive enjoy a higher or lower status among machine civlizations?
It seems that at least until contact is made, the optimal endgame strategy involves keeping humanity alive and happy for immediate demonstration in case contact occurs (if contact is imminent it may consider quickly hiding humanity, buying time to figure out if it is considered good or poor practice to keep the ancestor species alive, and then either reveal us in happy mint condition or otherwise quickly commit genocide on humans before continuing contact).
No one takes Yudowsky's claims that AI will destroy humanity seriously. There are many people who are seriously trying to sandbox AIs.
But the handful of tech billionaires at the helm of the world economy absolutely do believe it. Or at least pretend to believe it. Or maybe they can't even tell the difference anymore as they strip-mine science fiction for any vision of a future that doesn't just look like an incrementally worse version of the present.
If it's able to generate that is competitive with artists, is it still slop?
It's interesting to see the definitions of terms like "slop" and "vibe coding" evolve in real time.
I think it's interesting that so many technologists today apparently hold a world view in which technology developments that could drive a "bleak" societal outlook can still be described as "positive".
In the final analysis, isn't technology supposed to benefit society? Isn't that the point?
I had my decade old game completely cloned on steam (clearly done using AI as it was almost fully reimplemented in another engine). And I had several people gleefully tell me I deserve this because I've used AI.
I have complex emotions here (overall dread and especially hate for slop, since it's not just bad quality but also endless lies), but no one cares about that nuance.
What an irony. This is absolutely hilarious.
Let people feel things, and don't shit on their work, that's uncalled for.
and it is weird to call it brave. Posting opinions that loads of other people have on the internet is brave? bravery would be taking an actual stand against someone about one of these things. (granted, there is some bravery to sharing one's writing in public at all, and I don't mean to scorn that, but that's also not the bravery you're talking about.)
Probably there's no use responding to this and getting into a bickery comment thread. I just wanted to express a negative opinion about the format to offset all the positive ones.