Name one other market that would benefit financially from having most of the leaders in the field say what they are building has a high chance of ending humanity?
Biotech - "what we are building our noble prize winning expertd say will likely will end humanity, wanna buy shares?"
Oil - "this will likely lead to the end of civilization, 20% of leaders in the field say so, wanna buy shares?"
I keep seeing this take that this is a marketing stunt. The burden of proof is on those that say so. The most parsimonious explanation is simply that real experts in AI believe the risk is very real, and not for ideological reasons.
I wonder if you think and feel the same level of boredom and complete lack of magic of the Apollo module once you learn how incredibly limited and not able to explore the whole solar system this tech was.
If we run this experiment and most people say they wish they could replace their battery would you concede you are actually the one with idiosyncratic preferences?
There literally are drugs vastly less addictive and harmful than others. So some designation of some as "soft" and others as "hard" is not unwarranted (though we can argue where that cutoff is) and anything that paints all drugs the same is a false equivalence that suspiciously appears more ideologically anti-drug driven rather than impartial evidence-driven.
Same goes for anyone saying all gambling is the same.
It is good provocation even if it is poor analogy.
This is because bacon is more like cigarettes than most people assume, even if far less dangerous in practice.
Like another example is "sugar is poison." which is also structured as a factual equivalence and also gesturing at something real and also designed to land as a stronger claim than the evidence warrants.
Modern industrial farming practices are so far removed from "natural" with how they are processed that an ultra-processed slurry of starches and oils is more far more "natural" by comparison.
If you want to simply go by societal resilience from biorisks then switching to more easily controllable substances like plant based meat for protein would be an absolute win.
I wonder if there is any evidence of the Iran war starting, in part, as a distraction from this. I recall reading somewhere that there is a long historical trend of countries and empires going to war - so much so that some of it can even be predictably modelled - once economic realities and discontent at home get too bad. War then acts as a form of national unity that helps keep the current elite in power.
Dubai is predictable evil. You know what to do to avoid trouble.
The Trump admin acts like it is on cocaine. Many people - and I think this can be a highly rational preference - prefer predictable more evil of chaotic less evil.
You sound like you are laying blame at the feet of companies following employment laws when you should be complaining to the government that makes the employment laws the company is abiding by.
The safest version will still be better overall regardless, by definition. It is also a better future for most if it is inevitable that the war department is going to use a less safe alternative if they can't use the safer one.
Specialized research AI agents are coming at which point we'll have numerous LLMs running and verifying experiments and creating a higher quality text corpus than the 2014-2020 halcyon, which is then used for other LLMs to be trained on.
It will be the reverse I suspect. Eventually we will see that LLM quality is lower when it is training data from 2014-2020 and will chalk it up to human limitations and the data not being written with a laser-focused goal of training better AI.
I feel like all the BS we were taught about architecture design principles multi-AZ, failover strategies, graceful degradation etc was gaslighting us all into thinking any of out work on it actually matters.
This isn't true, but it feels like this when the entire engineering world order seems to actually run on single-point-of-failures where one CEO just messages another when some 3rd party is down. And reputational risk here is completely safeguarded because as long as everyone is down you are fine. Use a service everyone uses and it goes down = no reputational risk. Use a more robust architecture and make some mistake = massive reputational risk and everyone asks why you don't use what everyone else uses.