[than3]

> I'd be interested in what survey you are referring to.

Its the same as mentioned in the video.

> But I was mainly responding to your comment ... > Unless GPT-4 specifically is believed to be a threat to the human race ...

That's flawed logic. A false dichotomy, and also begs the question as to who decides it is a threat.

As for whether its dangerous, I think the fact that the model they discussed in that video shipped and deployed publicly before anyone knew it had embedded knowledge of research grade chemistry capable of some horrific things, all without the knowledge of the people who designed it. It was only discovered after the fact, and that is pretty disturbing.

With dangerous and existential threats, its not considered safe until deemed unsafe, its by-default considered unsafe until deemed its safe. That's how you limit tragedies.

We can disagree, but if we do I sincerely hope you do not touch this stuff.

[staticman2]

It's banally true that intentionally putting an A.I. in charge of our nucleur arsenal might be dangerous.

My point is someone can answer a survey stating A.I. could destroy our species without believing GPT-4 is existentially dangerous.

[than3]

You've changed your argument which causes me to be skeptical of your credibility

Not everyone is equally educated, the two are not mutually exclusive.

People can say either. Educated, rational and reasonable people would say yes on both if they do the risk management analysis and understand the factors driving how it will be used.