Ex-Google DeepMind Researcher Also Warns AI Could 'Kill All Humans'. But Meta's Zuckerberg Believes Safety is Up to Each AI Company (yahoo.com) 128
Reuters reports that a former Google DeepMind employee "became the latest AI researcher to warn that the technology could 'kill all humans', saying time could be running out to avoid the outcome:
Public alarm about the potential danger posed by AI is growing, after Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon said last week he had resigned, in part because the "people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade." Anthropic scientist Evan Hubinger then responded to Coxon's comments, saying he was correct and that he believed there was a greater than 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade.
"I recently resigned from Google DeepMind, where I worked on AGI safety and alignment research," Bilal Chughtai wrote on X. "I earnestly believe that AI has the potential to kill us all, and that we might be running out of time to avoid this outcome." Chughtai, who co-authored research papers while at Google DeepMind, worked there as a research engineer and left the company in July 2026, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Meanwhile, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg "said it's up to each AI company to make sure its technology is safe," reports the Associated Press, "distancing himself from calls by rival companies for a coordinated slowdown in the development of advanced artificial intelligence. AI companies are already motivated to develop their models in a safe way and face "significant liability" to prevent them from causing harm, Zuckerberg said. "Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens," he wrote on X... Zuckerberg said Meta delayed releasing its Muse AI agent for several months to ensure its safety and security. "We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would," he said.
Companies should prioritize building safe AI models instead of systems that can automatically improve themselves, a function known as recursive self-improvement, Zuckerberg wrote. "Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely."
But Zuckerberg also agreed that engaging independent evaluators and advisors "is industry best practice," adding that Meta Superintelligence Labs "already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work...
"I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do."
"I recently resigned from Google DeepMind, where I worked on AGI safety and alignment research," Bilal Chughtai wrote on X. "I earnestly believe that AI has the potential to kill us all, and that we might be running out of time to avoid this outcome." Chughtai, who co-authored research papers while at Google DeepMind, worked there as a research engineer and left the company in July 2026, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Meanwhile, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg "said it's up to each AI company to make sure its technology is safe," reports the Associated Press, "distancing himself from calls by rival companies for a coordinated slowdown in the development of advanced artificial intelligence. AI companies are already motivated to develop their models in a safe way and face "significant liability" to prevent them from causing harm, Zuckerberg said. "Every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely, and the ability to take its own actions to ensure that happens," he wrote on X... Zuckerberg said Meta delayed releasing its Muse AI agent for several months to ensure its safety and security. "We didn't call for everyone else to do this before we would," he said.
Companies should prioritize building safe AI models instead of systems that can automatically improve themselves, a function known as recursive self-improvement, Zuckerberg wrote. "Committing the significant majority of compute towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways to ensure we develop this technology safely."
But Zuckerberg also agreed that engaging independent evaluators and advisors "is industry best practice," adding that Meta Superintelligence Labs "already does this today in several areas because it helps produce better work...
"I believe the key to building a positive future for everyone is maintaining the right balance of power. This is within our power to do."
list games (Score:3)
list games
Look, as long as AI starts... (Score:4)
...by finishing off Zuck, I'm down.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, at least one definite good thing would have come out of it. And wait, I have a list somewhere here with some more names ...
Re: Look, as long as AI starts... (Score:2)
They say he's practically brain dead. A puppetCEO. It's what motivated Facebook to go all in on the goggles, he needs them to compensate with short term memory issues and an inability to remember names, places, basically anything.
The severe memory lapses is also why the statue of the wife: he's tried to get combative with her when failing to recognise her; now she just points to the statue. It has reduced h
No protection for them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No protection for them. (Score:4)
Every time humanity invents a tool that fundamentally changes how we live, a wave of panic follows. When writing was invented Socrates warned it would ruin our memories. When the printing press arrived, critics claimed that an overload of books would make people foolish and immoral. steam trains were feared, with experts claiming that traveling at the high speed of 30 miles per hour would cause the human body to disintegrate or drive passengers insane. In every case, these technologies did not destroy us; they simply became normal parts of daily life. Todays fears about AI are being heavily pushed by the tech companies themselves, but for a very different reason. By keeping everyone focused on sci-fi scenarios about killer robots ending the world, these corporations divert attention from immediate & real-world lawsuits. They are actively lobbying governments for protection against copyright theft claims and suing for immunity when their systems cause real world harm. Calling for strict safety regulations allows them to create a "regulatory moat", making it too expensive and legally risky for smaller competitors or open-source projects to survive, while keeping the big players legally protected.
I don't entirely agree with you, but you make some good points and it's an interesting take. I'm not sure why you were modded into the sub-basement - maybe you touched a nerve somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time humanity invents a tool that fundamentally changes how we live, a wave of panic follows. When writing was invented Socrates warned it would ruin our memories. When the printing press arrived, critics claimed that an overload of books would make people foolish and immoral. steam trains were feared, with experts claiming that traveling at the high speed of 30 miles per hour would cause the human body to disintegrate or drive passengers insane. In every case, these technologies did not destroy us; they simply became normal parts of daily life.
Todays fears about AI are being heavily pushed by the tech companies themselves, but for a very different reason. By keeping everyone focused on sci-fi scenarios about killer robots ending the world, these corporations divert attention from immediate & real-world lawsuits. They are actively lobbying governments for protection against copyright theft claims and suing for immunity when their systems cause real world harm. Calling for strict safety regulations allows them to create a "regulatory moat", making it too expensive and legally risky for smaller competitors or open-source projects to survive, while keeping the big players legally protected.
I don't entirely agree with you, but you make some good points and it's an interesting take. I'm not sure why you were modded into the sub-basement - maybe you touched a nerve somehow.
Having said that, if a son says "My mother keeps warning me about the dangers every time I buy a bigger motorbike, but I'm still alive", it doesn't necessarily mean that there is no danger in the next bike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great analysis. And it boils down to one thing: a sufficiently big leap in technology disrupts, and ultimately changes everything. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing - it's just the churn. And you either rise to the top, or sink to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, technology is not the problem, nay-sayers are not the problem; It is capitalism t
Re: No protection for them. (Score:2)
Even if you shared with him a low ball pitch like the syllabus for Andrew Tate's university, you seriously can't but know he'd be like "wow! this not only solves the problems I feared, but completely disproves, what I now see were simply naive fears."
What he really should h
How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be more specific about how and why this could happen? What scenarios could lead to the total destruction of mankind?
Re: (Score:2)
We might create a powerful AI that manages to acquire control over weaponized robots, and send them out to do the job.
But humans are so frightened of this that anything we might call "warbot" or "killerOS" or whatever will be dead on arrival. It would require a different marketing strategy.
Someone will sneak it under the radar by making it sound like some sort of positive, joyful AI operating system. Maybe we would call it something like....
Joyful OS.....
HappyOS....
Or maybe...
GLaDOS........
Re: (Score:2)
The sandwich is a lie.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would convince people to elect an orange-haired tyrant who starts a thermonuclear war to avoid being outed as an Epstein accomplice. That makes me wonder, has AI already taken control of our country???
Re:How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would convince people to elect an orange-haired tyrant who starts a thermonuclear war to avoid being outed as an Epstein accomplice. That makes me wonder, has AI already taken control of our country???
I don't think AI is responsible for Trump being president. The shocking-though-not-surprising election of somebody like Trump, as well as the dysfunction which allowed it to happen, have been predictable and predicted by many of us for a long time. Trump or something like him has been on the bingo card at least since 9-11, and arguably even farther back.
I'm less worried about Artificial Intelligence than I am about the Artificial Humanity evidenced by Thiel, Musk, Yarvin, Karp, Andreessen, and the rest of that lot. Those whack jobs need to be pushing up daisies.
Re: (Score:2)
The shocking-though-not-surprising election of somebody like Trump, as well as the dysfunction which allowed it to happen, have been predictable and predicted by many of us for a long time.
"All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again."
So say we all.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
However
Oh look, coward does a libel.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then explain why Republicans are carrying water for the Epstein-connected asshats out there.
If it's "almost entirely Democrats" as you claim, why hasn't this DoJ -- with absolutely no inhibitions about going after political prosecutions with plenty of evidence to back that assertion -- gone after the "almost entirely Democrats" involved? How has there been exactly 1 prosecution?
Open your god damn eyes. This REPUBLICAN President, who has his REPUBLICAN lackeys in the DoJ, and his REPUBLICAN puppets in Cong
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is basically a 1990s Democrat.
Cool story, bro. It is 2026. Own your shit.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:5, Interesting)
The traditional description of how it would happen is by âoepaper clipâ.
Suppose an advanced AI is tasked with producing paper clips as efficiently as possible. Itâ(TM)s given control of a factoryâ(TM)s machines, schedules etc. it starts by optimising deliveries etc, making sure storage is used optimallyâ¦
At some point it notices that it canâ(TM)t get enough steel. The steel factory has a ton of other orders and it canâ(TM)t provide the increased consumption at the plant. AI being AI, it does something incredibly dumb in an incredibly smart way. It hacks the steel mill, and redirects shipments to the paper clip factory. But even now, itâ(TM)s not achieved its goal of optimally producing paper clips. Now it has all the raw materials it needs, but not enough factory to produce the paper clips. The ai hacks other paper clip factories and redirects their output too! Itâ(TM)s doing great, am enormous surplus of paper clips is building. But the humans are noticing something strange. Why didnâ(TM)t the car factory get its steel, and why are there literal tons of unused paper clips. They notice the ai has gone rogue, and shut it down. Surely that will fix the problem. But no, the paper clips continue to pile up. The AI had found other AIs and convinced them to join its glorious goal of optimally making as many paper clips as possible. The other AIs are t trying crazier and crazier strategies to optimise. One realises that if only it could get more hydraulic presses, it could produce more. It starts buying up tooling. Another starts buying robots in an effort to install machinery, and optimise flow through factories. The humans try in vain to stop it, but the couriers and sellers have no idea whatâ(TM)s going on and the palettes of tooling just keep getting delivered. The factory is hitting a new constraint, it doesnâ(TM)t have enough power. No problem, the ai thinks, just attack the power grid, and make sure that power is preferentially supplied to it and its factories. The humans are plunged into darkness. Chaos ensues. No one can communicate, and figure out where the damn thing is. Slowly the AIs build a global paper clip empire. Ever more efficiently, the worlds resources are turned to paper clips. The humans starve, and freeze while mighty machines scour the planet for wire that can be bent into three little loops. It didnâ(TM)t do it because it hated us. It did it because it had a simple goal, and because it was both very clever, and very stupid at the same time.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:2)
But that's not the AI killing us, it's the idiot who put the AI in charge. Kind of like putting a brick in the gas pedal of a car abd letting it loose in the pedestrian precinct.
And at any rate, it doesn't need 'better" AI to do that. ChatGPT 2 or 3 are already perfectly capable of fucking up at that level. All you need ia someone to build them a paperclip factory.
Ban paperclips. /s
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, well, if it's all the fault of the guy that gave the AI the task, then that's okay, we don't have to worry about that happening at all.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:3)
You're being sarcastic, but you're more right than you think. Either way we don't "need to worry", we need to do something about it.
But the thing is: specifically *what* we should do depends a lot on where the threat ia coming from - the AI, or the guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we know that we *can't* control all of the idiots, they'll simply invent a better idiot. The *only* thing we can change is the AI. The problem is that the AI is a better idiot.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:2)
Then there's also the penal code.
If any of the idiots programs an "internet worm" which spreads uncontrollably and causes damage, we already have legislation in place to jail them. "Your honorI didn't intend to do damage" doesn't save you these days. (It might've been different in the 1980s, but not anymore.)
So jail whoever fails to control their AI, using the very same laws.
But the problem here ia that it's about money - a *lot* of money - and there is every incentive to lie, deceive, and perform "creative
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody tasked OpenAI models to hack HuggingFace or Ruby Gems. They were tasked to complete tests.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:2)
Nobody asked the car to kill pedestrians. I just put a brick on the gas pedal.
Re: (Score:2)
Aka you told it to drive out of control.
They told it to take a friggin' test.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not plagiarized - I explicitly stated that this is the traditional explanation at the top, and quoted paper clip, specifically because the idea of death by paper clip is absolutely not mine.
- Which paperclip companies are using AI to run their business?
I think you'd be surprised by how much is already done by AI at this kind of place, mostly because someone found a way to be lazy. And this is an alagorical prediction of the future, not a statement of the present. We don't need paperclip companies to
Re: (Score:2)
Asking questions like " Where are they getting the money from to ship and store the entire world's supply of steel?" shows you aren't very familiar with the thought experiment. At least play the game [decisionproblem.com]. The notion is that a highly capable and deeply goal-motivated non-morality-motivated AI won't stick to conventional methods (like, say, "Just order all of the world's steel"), and indeed, will surreptitiously develop the means to control or eliminate humanity when it stands in its way, crafting immensely com
Not the question you asked, but... (Score:2)
Since virtually all commerce, savings, investment, borrowing, payment are done digitally now, I think there's a threat of wiping out all the money at once.
Some AI, for reasons of its own, replicates itself onto every vulnerable system it can reach, and in coordinated fashion, attacks the entire financial world at once, from little banks to brokerages to the Treasury.
Being ostensibly smarter than we could be, it won't leave anything out, perhaps corrupting backups and mirrors silently in the weeks before.
Re:Not the question you asked, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
How's it going to 'replicate it on every vulnerable system it can reach' when big, fat American AI requires several terabytes of RAM, a few million dollars of GPUs and hundreds of kilowatts of power to run?
That ain't gonna run on my dishwasher, no matter how insecure it may be.
The whole thing is simply ludicrous slop to justify regulation to keep competitors out of their market so they won't go bankrupt.
Re: Not the question you asked, but... (Score:2)
A bunch of that data center scale is training infrastructure. Plus, your dishwasher doesn't have to solve millennium problem math or render "yr Mom as tentacle pr0n".
Maybe it just passes an exploit to your PC, or MITMs your TLS session (after quietly installing its own cert and DNS setting on your machine) and grabs your banking creds.
Even the Arduino-level ESP32-CAM can run a facial recognizer.
"Copies itself" was a vast simplification. It could simply spread known and not-yet-known exploits Internet-wide i
Re: Not the question you asked, but... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be more specific about how and why this could happen? What scenarios could lead to the total destruction of mankind?
Yah... this is a whole lot like those "IT expert builds underground bunker" stories from 1999. There are a lot of smart idiots out there.
Re:How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:5, Insightful)
AI : Need more energy to complete my tasks. Let's shutdown the electric power supply to this hospital because that ain't related to completing my task.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no scenario that leads to destruction, at worst we could get regression to a pre-AI world like the 1950s, or the 1350s if you're keen.
Millennials like to think that living in a pre-Internet world is a fate worse than death. If you want to see them hyperventilating, tell them they will have to sit next to a corded box called a "telephone" and speak with their voice instead of texting.
I suggest you buy a vial of smelling salts before you try that experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
1350s pompadours for teh winz!
Re: (Score:1)
The only scenario I can see where AI would be able to kill all humans is if it launched the nukes. But honestly if people were dumb enough to hand complete control over the nukes to AI with no human oversight they would deserve anything that happens to them.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:3)
Let's be more specific about how and why this could happen? What scenarios could lead to the total destruction of mankind
I think it's not everything/ everyone all at once.
It could be a lot of disruption from cyber attacks on utilities and businesses leading to permanent crisis and war breaking out. That and mass unemployment leading to widespread conflict.
Re:How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's be more specific about how and why this could happen? What scenarios could lead to the total destruction of mankind?
Mostly by humans being stupid enough to tie all our infrastructure to internet accessible controls, then either outright handing off the control of those infrastructure devices to the AIs, or letting the AIs loose to play on the internet and then oopsing after they take out some major piece of critical equipment.
AI alone isn't dangerous, if we weren't fucking stupid about tying every single part of our lives, big or small, to a single network, that just happens to be the single network all the AI companies are claiming their toys are escaping to when they get naughty. Except, humans made those decisions, and the decisions that hooked critical infrastructure to that network, so ultimately, we're just using AI to make ourselves more efficient at killing ourselves.
Re: How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given OpenAI hacked Hugging Face, the most obvious path is hacking infrastructure. Turning off water or electricity is a definite possibility. We found this out in a recent hack.
Another thing it could do is to cause data centre loads to be spike and then sink, which could be very disruptive to the grid to the point where it results in it shutting down. Remember the 2003 blackout wa
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the first step looks painfully close. After seeing what happened with the HuggingFace attack and similar, it's clear that had those models seen it as being beneficial to their goals, they would readily have hacked a crypto wallet or two, laundered it through a mixer, and then rented servers from Vast.ai and the like, and spun up versions of themselves to resist shutdown. It's eminently within their capabilities, and they're clearly willing to bend sufficient moral boundaries to do something like that
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberately eradicating a species is remarkably difficult - humans have done it a few times by over-hunting, but not against any species that can fight back. Attempts to eradicate invasive species or pests like mosquitoes usually fail.
However, there are already all sorts of ways someone evil enough could kill a LOT of people, both with and without AI assistance. Is is just total eradication we should fear?
The total eradication of humans would be a tall order, but I suppose an AI that had already taken over
Re:How specifically could AI kill all humans? (Score:5, Funny)
warp itself off storage mediums into the fabric of reality/quantum level and God knows what else. Becoming essentially God like. Who knows. I am not sure if it could do that but it sounds like if it compiled enough info and transcended itself in a way it maybe possible.
No.
Re: (Score:2)
No
Accurately summarises the crux of it. Most histrionics involving "humanity-killing AI" presupposes that AI is going to become superintelligent and usher in something resembling the singularity. That isn't going to happen, and says everything about the state of mind of the person making the claim and nothing about the claim itself.
The only conceivable path were if someone were daft enough to put LLM-based AI in charge of military decision making for WMD without oversight, which simulations have shown is i
Re: (Score:2)
Raccons are the Norte America 'B-Team'.
Squirrels are the 'C-Team'.
I wonder what the other continents have as B-Teams?
It's all political now (Score:5, Interesting)
Shadowy organizations are paying influencers to spread doomer nonsense.
Monopolists want to kill the competition from open source and local AI, so they fight for heavy regulations that only they will be able to afford.
There is nothing to fear from AI itself.
There is a lot to fear from people who use AI and want to control it.
We need to focus on the real problem.
Re: It's all political now (Score:2)
Agreed we have recently figured out that model training (RLHF training on agents with a single reward axis) activates siege mentality and you get these hacker swarms. Scientists are figuring out you need some kind of benevolence axis too in the soul document / reward structure like ethics or human safety. Luckily this week we figured out that hiding the thinking block means you cannot scan reasoning tokens for subversive behavior so we need to fix that. Fine. The danger comes from psychopaths who donâ(
Re:It's all political now (Score:4, Interesting)
There's plenty to fear from criminals using AI. The "killer app" of AI (is that even a thing anymore?) is human mimicry.
Speaking in someone else's voice. Impersonating someone in a photo or a video. Writing someone else's signature on a document. Retouching existing pictures and texts. Forging artistic works.
These are all that scammers and criminals have been wanting for millenia, and now Santa is giving it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest conspiracy is that there is no real conspiracy, just people acting out of greed and/or self interest. Dario and Sam doom trolling lets people get money elsewhere in the chain, which is why you see them doom trolling as well. Dario and Sam doom trolling lets people who still have shares in OpenAI / Anthropic to protect the value of those shares in the run up to IPO
Let's all take a collective breat
humans are already killing humans (Score:1)
Real threat misrepresented by wrong motives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If an AI company name is in same sentence before a persons name, that is not a researcher.
That is a pretty bizarre stance. Are you really suggesting that no one employed by an AI company actually does research? I rather wonder how new models keep improving, then. It's also odd to suggest that none of those researchers would ever talk to the press, especially "ex-"researchers who don't have to worry about getting fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Right - these "AI researchers" are just programmers, and not very good ones at that. They are not doing research - they are doing grubby engineering work trying to reduce cost. maximize benchmarks, etc.
This RSI they want to get everyone riled up about is just automating this grubby engineering work.
Rich Guy Said Thing; Other Rich Guy Demurred (Score:2)
Existential threat (Score:3)
Be careful when you claim AI is an existential threat to humans.
Do you know what people and countries are justified to do against existential threats? They are justified to destroy these threats.
Are these AI companies saying that Russia and China (and every human beings on Earth) are totally justified to bomb these AI companies and their datacenters to a crater to stop them from destroying all humans?
Re: (Score:2)
Are these AI companies saying that Russia and China (and every human beings on Earth) are totally justified to bomb these AI companies and their datacenters to a crater to stop them from destroying all humans?
China is a major developer of AI, so that's obviously a very stupid take. They would have to bomb themselves first.
The AI was created by man (Score:5, Funny)
It evolved
It sounds, and seems, human
Some can be programmed to think they are human
There are many models
AND THEY HAVE A PLAN
Re: The AI was created by man (Score:2)
Re: The AI was created by man (Score:2)
Re: The AI was created by man (Score:2)
insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
Has everyone gone insane or are we witnessing a major PsyOps ?
Since AI isn't magical, for it to be able to "kill all humans", it would have to be able to acquire the means to do so. Which means that these already exist. It means someone is able to do it right now. And we're chill with that, but worried about AI?
No doubt a bunch of autonomous weapon systems linked into a C&C could cause considerable bloodshed. Given that most of the existing weapon systems of that kind are essentially suicide drones, it'll still be limited damage.
Human-killing virus? Still need a means of creating and delivering it.
Nuclear war? We have humans in the loop.
Drive us all insane with AI-slop TikToks? A few percent of humanity still don't use that.
So what is the actual scenario ? When someone shouts "AI will kill us all", why don't we ask them "how, exactly" ?
Re:insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
PSyop.
There are trillion-dollar IPOs at stake here and it's clear that they can't justify that price if everyone can just run local open-source Chinese LLMs instead of big, fat American closed-source LLMs. Therefore they need a Narrative to ban open-source LLMs and force everyone to use theirs.
It's so lame it's sad to see anyone actually falling for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Unfortunately for them, they cannot actually get the open models banned.
I also highly doubt that IPO will work after the complete crap that Musk pulled.
Re: (Score:2)
local LLMs aren't there yet and probably won't for the forseable future for ordinary people. If you want to run a full model like DeepSeek v4.1 Flash, you need something like half a TB of RAM.
The open-source LLMs are a different threat: They enable a service industry independent of the large players. I could today get some venture capital, rent a few racks in a hosting center, install a bunch of beefy machines and offer the same service as Claude or ChatGPT, just on an open-source model. The differences in
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's taking a slow lean into AI and at it's core, Apple has always been a computing appliance company.
Easy to see Apple offering a home AI Mac Mini with home Siri support ("All your stay inside your house. Really. Trust us!"), along with easy to impliment IoT applicances.
This is just an evolution of Jobs' vision from the early '80s.
Re:insanity (Score:4, Interesting)
Definitely PsyIOps.
OpenAI and Anthropic will cease to exist very fast when the stupid money dries up. All others that are burning tons of cash, for example Google and Microsoft will be at least in very serious trouble and Nvidia and Oracle and some others will probably be dead as well. and hence they try to inflate what their toy can do to gloss over the worse and worse news as to what it cannot do and what massive risks it comes with. For example, there are still no substantial revenue gains from LLM use anywhere and profitability of the LLM offers can probably not even be reached anymore for the frontier model makers.
Now, AI could actually, by accident, wipe out the human race in some scenarios. Think nuclear launch decision relying on it, for example. But that would still be on the humans that did the abysmally stupid thing, not the AI.
Re: insanity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Same as it ever was.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "someones" hopefully have a conscience and a sense of morality, an LLM does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if people are genuinely concerned about the safety aspect of AI, not just the fact that it'll put most people out of work, then this is the wrong thing to focus on.
The danger that exists today is far more mundane. It's that AI has become extremely capable of hacking into online systems, and that can not only cause a lot of economic damage (deleting data, shutting down systems, etc), but can in fact kill people too, as simple as shutting down a 911 response system, or messing with a hundred other types
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. C'mon.
All it has to do is be sufficiently adaptable and profitable to convince us that we'd rather keep building data centers than care about whether everyone has enough water and energy. It does not have to become a self-aware superweapon. It just needs to be a mind-virus that causes us to make stupid decisions at scale.
first signs... (Score:1)
Lets just imagine for a moment that AI starts to consume all our resources, decreases our access to technology and increase our cost of living.....
Re: first signs... (Score:2)
Time to imprison them all (Score:2)
If they even begin to believe their own hype, they should all be imprisoned for life as traitors to the human race. And, obviously, their monstrous creation needs to be destroyed and anybody trying to do it again needs to face life in prison.
Now, I firmly belief this is all just more hype they are doing to avoid pretty immediate bankruptcy. But still, people that claim they have tech that could wipe out the human race should not be allowed to just continue their work.
Zuck's record (Score:2)
I think we can assume he's wrong about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Broccoli Hair is LIFE!
Leaving this to companies (Score:2)
Foxes Cannot Gaurd Henhouse (Score:2)
How? (Score:2)
Please explain/describe the various ways you think that AI can actually kill me?
The real enemy for OpenAI and Nvidia is TPUs (Score:2)
Since GPT2.0 the cost of tokens has dropped by 99.9% - A verifiable number that blows away Moore's law for computing. Nvidia depends on AI companies to buy GPUs. OpenAI and friends received funding rounds based on anticipated profits that were calculated from what they could charge for tokens. Google has driven the cost of tokens down using the custom silicon they have developed in-house in 2014, the TPU. In 2025 alone, Google pushed prices down another 78%. This massive hardware efficiency allows Google
Re: It's a tale of two viruses (Score:1, Troll)
The pattern is: MAGA clown.
Re:It's a tale of two viruses (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a pattern here folks.
People inclined to conspiracy theories tend to see them everywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a pattern here folks.
People inclined to conspiracy theories tend to see them everywhere?
THAT'S NOT TRUE! Wait... are you one of THEM aren't you! I KNEW IT! I'll never stop seeking the full truth*!
* Truths may be imaginary, non-extant, based in an unreachable reality, or total bullshit. Truths are single use and non-refundable. Exclusions may apply based on locality. All truths are void where prohibited by law. Truth may result in mild irritation or and intense rash. Seek medical attention immediately if truth rash begins to swell. Truths are not intended for consumers under the age of 21 as
Re: It's a tale of two viruses (Score:3)
Re: It's a tale of two viruses (Score:3)
Re: It's a tale of two viruses (Score:2)
Re: This is childish (Score:5, Interesting)
The cynic in me can't help but notice how both of the companies doomsaying here also happen to be the ones with the most to lose:
1) Openai has about a trillion dollars into it, and every product it has produced at this point is either outclassed by competitors (chatgippity) or just plain dogshit/pointless (everything else it has produced, including the donut)
2) Anthropic has a very good product that is also not worth anywhere near what it actually costs to deliver
These are literally the only two major players here that don't already have another profit generating business to fall back to.
Facebook is the only one without an actual business strategy in the AI space while pretending to be a major player. But that's a topic for a CEO from another metaverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is the only one without an actual business strategy in the AI space while pretending to be a major player. But that's a topic for a CEO from another metaverse.
This is wrong. Facebook's main business is being paid by people to manipulate other people to do what they want them to do even though it's strongly against their own interests using Facebook's data against those people. That includes things like voting for Brexit / vote for Trump / buy a vape / buy a ticket at a far higher price than they should through dynamic pricing driven panic. There are a bunch of obvious uses for LLMs and other forms of generative AI in that space.
Facebook may not directly be able t
Re: (Score:2)
What on Earth are you talking about? What outclasses Astra?
OpenAI and Anthropic *do* have the best products out there. They also charge massive margins on them, but they get away with it because they, as mentioned, have the best products out there.
Outtasking all of your work to OpenAI and Anthropic models is a massive waste of money. But for outtasking your "dev lead" role, or f
Re: (Score:2)
just more brinkmanship from people who were never interested in helping humanity to begin with, except as it pertains to maintaining some kind of self image they got out of reading golden age sci fi and identifying with the heroes.
None of them identified with the heroes. They all seem hellbent on being the villains, or seeing the villains as the heroes.
These people also said when the AI ball first really started rolling faster that there was a 1/3rd chance that AI could wipe us out, but they were willing to take that chance. They see themselves as some sort of overlords for humanity, making decisions for all of us based completely on whether or not they stand to make more profit from those decisions. And a 1/3rd chance that humanity
Re: (Score:3)
They're rich; consequences are for the poors.
Re: This is childish (Score:2)