[dragonwriter]

> Almost all AGI doomsayers assume AGI will have agency

I disagree. Concern about the use of AI without agency by its human masters as a tool of both intentional and incidental repression and unjust discrimination resulting in a durable dystopia is far more common an “AI doom” concern than any involving agency.

In fact, the disproportionately wealthy and invested in AI crowd pushing agency-based doom scenarios that the media pays the most attention to are using their visibility and economic clout to distract from the non-agency-dependent AI doom concerns, and to justify narrow control and opacity which makes the non-agency-based doom scenarios (which they are positioned to benefit from) more likely.

[dwohnitmok]

> In fact, the disproportionately wealthy and invested in AI crowd pushing agency-based doom scenarios that the media pays the most attention to are using their visibility and economic clout to distract from the non-agency-dependent AI doom concerns, and to justify narrow control and opacity which makes the non-agency-based doom scenarios (which they are positioned to benefit from) more likely.

It's extremely important to think about how to spread AI equitably, but I think you're severely underestimating what "agency-based doom" looks like. You absolutely need both checks on the people who are developing AI as well as AI itself, but you really really need both and can't assume that the former automatically leads to the latter.