Expert opinions on Future

If anyone, anywhere builds a superhuman artificial intelligence using present methods, the most likely outcome is catastrophe.

The question that the noble Lord posed was: do we therefore go for a moratorium? That would be highly desirable, but I do not think that it will be possible in the short term.

My own view, after talking with colleagues in the AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, is that a moratorium would be unenforceable.

We do this pretraining on human data, and then we get something that… understands human values fairly innately now.

If it takes over that's what will happen. [...] We don't know how to do that. We don't even know if it's possible.

What this proof shows is that there is no finite set of guardrails that is universally robust against adversarial prompts.

ABUNDANCE IS COMING. THE QUESTION IS WHO IT'S COMING FOR.

AI could make goods and services cheaper than ever, raising hopes for a new age of abundance where scarcity plays a smaller role in human life.

Scarcity has shifted, not disappeared: The premise of AI abundance needs sharper evidence.

We at the Futures Project think that there's a 70% chance of all humans dead or something similarly bad.

So when people predict a high degree of existential risk from AGI, I don’t actually think “arguing back” on their chosen terms is the correct response. Radical agnosticism is the correct response, where all specific scenarios are pretty unlikely. Non...

Those extreme risks are still science fiction. So these speeches are largely diversions, very deliberately crafted.

For many parameter settings, the optimal strategy would involve moving quickly to AGI capability, then pausing briefly before full deployment: swift to harbor, slow to berth.

Because the point of AI safety is not to slow the future down. It is to make sure the future remains human, aligned with our values, and advancing our interests.