this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2026
39 points (93.3% liked)
Technology
87980 readers
2518 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's make one thing clear: The "extinction warning" was marketing.
LLMs generate text. That's all they do. Don't want them to create an army of killer robots or deadly viruses? Then don't run them in a harness that can create robots or viruses. Problem solved.
People already run all sorts of LLMs connected to uncontained, agentic things. Like, sure, if you have some kind of isolation system adequate to contain it, then there's no risk. But...people are running stuff without such an isolation system, all over, now.
Hell, South Africa infamously used an LLM to write the legal rules that they were proposing to control AI, then didn't validate the text by human. If there's one place you would not want to use unvalidated AI output, that's it.
I tend to be somewhat skeptical of the practical risk, but in If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, Yudkowsky makes the case that existing systems are already too dangerous, not because of what they thenselves can directly do, but because they are being applied in ways that could lead more-sophisticated systems to emerge.
If you're an AI researcher, one of the most obvious and imnediately-relevant applications of AI is using it to improve existing AI.
Think of our current CPUs. No human could ever have designed them. They are far too complex, contain billions of transistors. But...we built computers and then promptly used them as tools to build more capable computers.
Yudkowsky's point is that you have people doing that sort of thing with AI now, and doing so in a way that produces very unpredictable results.
Now, my guess is that that doesn't constitute much of a probability of going very badly by complete surprise. I think that it's very likely that instead of a paperclip maximizer that obliterates humanity, you get something that fails spectacularly in a way that causes itself to stop functioning. Like, I'd bet that we'd see something more like a series of similar, spectacular failures before we get something that can function long enough and well enough to represent an existential threat.
But...I will concede that that's more of a gut feeling. I don't have real numbers. I can't make a really convincing argument to myself that I am definitely right. And if I'm wrong, the cost is very high.
In practical terms, what such extinction would look like? AI launching nukes? Designing and releasing some virus? Building some robot army and killing everyone? I don't think anything like that is realistic. I can imagine AI hacking some systems and severely disrupting everything but "extinction"? I don't really see that.
Yudkowsky tends to like engineering bioweapons in If Anyone Builds It, Eveeyone Dies.
I'm not sure that that'd be my first concern, but I also don't really think that ability to affect the non-electronic world is really the big hurdle. I think that the bug hurdle is getting some kind of AGI running somewhere, and once that happens, it's going to be really difficult to keep it from acting in the real world in a way that gives itself more capability to act.
Like, I don't think that the idea that computers are a sort of effective containment system and that the AI is inside a computer, and humans will act as a sensible check on the computer influencing the real world, so it can't do much, holds up very well. If you do wind up with something more-capable than humans running around, I think that it's going to be very hard to anticipate all the possible risks.
Say that someone manages to get an AI producing something particularly valuable and useful, doing something profitable for them. My guess is that they are probably going to link it up to whatever they think will be useful.
My understanding from past reading is that one of China's principal near-term interests is in trying to leverage AI to do industrial automation. Even if it were not, you're going to have more-and-more heavily-automated production facilities, and probably more general-purpose systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)
You have the ability to influence humans, which can also affect the real world. One of the most-seriously disrupted industries by LLMs right now is in copywriting, targeted advertising. Why? Because they're pretty good at influencing humans, even in very primitive form. And we have an interest in building models that can influence people even more effectively.
You don't have to have a human be off trying to intentionally trying to destroy humanity to be doing sonething that gives an AI increasing ability to act in the real world.
I remember reading an article a while back about some guy who had spent a while talking to ChatGPT or some similar chatbot and who became convinced that he needed to violently liberate the god being held captive in the computer. Like, if, as some have put it, "glorified auto-complete" can get a human to do that, what could a much-more-capable system with goals and intentions do? I think that just the ability to communicate with humans, which we certainly already permit (and is one of our main uses), would make containment pretty hard.
AI missile detection system gives false data during heightened conflict and a human decides to push the big red button before getting proper verification. Doesn't have to be AI launching nukes it could be our tools to know when to launch nukes hallucinate and humans make a snap decision
So it's more "humanity using AI wrong and shooting itself in the foot" rather than "evil AI killing everyone on purpose"? Is that really what they are warning us about? Using AI in the wrong places? When they talk about using AI to improve AI it sounds more like they are worried it will become to powerful, not that it will be used in critical systems.