Expert opinions on Existential Risk

The first is the danger that AI becomes so capable that humans lose control of it. This is the existential-risk scenario that dominates Silicon Valley’s safety debate. The ultimate threat is not China, the US or any particular lab. Rather, it is an a...

Much has been said about whether AI poses an ultimate existential threat to humanity. The more immediate existential challenge may be whether technologies that simulate relationships weaken our capacity for the relationships that foster our own human...

I’m not a doomer. This talk about human extinction is over the top. [...] The idea that these swarms of AI agents might jump the fence and take over a banking system or take over a water system or, God forbid, take over a hospital.

This suggests pacing the advances: not training or deploying AIs without a strong safety case that convinces independent experts.

I believe that attempting to deliberately pace AI development will be extremely difficult, and could do more harm than good if done without proper care. However, I am signing this statement because, if an attempt at pacing does occur, it would be bet...

Banning advances in artificial intelligence would be a profound mistake. More capable AI systems could accelerate medical breakthroughs, advance scientific research, improve productivity, and lower costs for American families. With policymakers focus...

Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.

I do not think this will happen. I don’t think that automating AI R&D will rapidly produce domain-general superintelligence. I don’t think that a data centre of geniuses, largely separated from the rest of the economy, will figure out how to cure Alz...

Alignment cannot depend on one AI becoming perfectly trustworthy.

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and ar...

But alignment is no solution: it is an unsolved scientific and technical problem whose solutions—to the extent that we have them—cannot simply be imposed on every AI company operating on Earth.

I think the studies are still at too early a stage. In general, however, I believe that human beings are mechanistic systems and that we will also see similar phenomena in computers. Therefore, at some point, we will be able to see conscious AI and w...

We will not just one day have an easy answer where everybody will agree.

AI cannot become conscious, nor can any machine aspect of technology or humanity.

I would like to see a CERN for AI [...] where all the top scientists come together and see whether they can make a super intelligence. And, if they can, they contain it into a system where it can't just go out and persuade people to let it run the wo...

It is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced. That’s why I am introducing legislation to immediately pause the development of increasingly powerful AI and ban the creation of systems that hu...

If mandated AI safety reviews are to have any teeth, they must be accompanied by a ban on dangerous AI models that have failed their assessments. This means that some method must be found to restrict access to dangerous open weight AI models. [...] C...

They tried to pass laws to stifle [free open-source AI software]. ... After that narrative lost credibility, and our government no longer believes that, thank God, the same people said, “Oh, AI could create bioweapons.” After the RAND and other studi...