Expert opinions on Future

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.

We should take decisive action now so that we can slow down, as the CEOs have recently acknowledged, slow down the pace of development in order to protect the American people and ensure that AI is proceeding safely.

I’m confident that a cooperative international approach (Plan A) is better than the alternatives because the alternatives involve being in a race during the intelligence explosion, which incurs huge risks. I’m not confident about the exact variant of...

We can put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that ... shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen. But whoever wins with AI wins.

AI isn’t going away. Barring unprecedented global government coordination, it isn’t even slowing down. The only real decision is whether to centralize power, or disperse it. Do you fear the technology? Or a small number of people controlling the te...

The “AGI-squashes-everyone” idea is unlikely, though not impossible. If American companies end up becoming dominant, my bet is that it will be because of the business ecosystems they build – not because they crossed a technological threshold that ren...

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...

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.

While this may seem dire, none of it is inevitable. The same machines that build drones can build houses and hospitals, and within a decade or so of full automation, it would be possible to extend the living standards of a wealthy American to every h...

If AI delivers even a fraction of its potential, it could generate unprecedented abundance. We could see decades of scientific progress compressed into years, and levels of productivity growth that today seem implausible.

AGI is generally understood as an AI system that can match or exceed human capabilities on most economically valuable tasks. In such a world, the automation of work would not be limited to specific industries or routine jobs. Instead, machines would ...