[dopamean]

I agree that nothing about the statement makes me think the risks are real however I disagree that if the risks are real these companies would stop working on their product. I think more realistically they'd shut up about the risk and downplay it a lot. Much like the oil industry did wrt climate change going back to the 70's.

[NumberWangMan]

Oil industries downplaying the risks makes a lot more sense. If you think that climate change will happen, but it'll happen after you're dead, and you'll be able to leave your kids a big inheritance so they'll be able to buy their way out of the worst of it, and eventually the government will get the message and stop us all using fossil fuels anyway, then you try to profit as much as you can in the short term.

With AGI existential risk, its likely to happen on a much shorter timescale, and it seems likely you won't be able to buy your way out of it.

[holmesworcester]

Yes, this!

It is extremely rare for companies or their senior staff to beg for regulation this far in advance of any big push by legislators or the public.

The interpretation that this is some 3-D chess on the companies' part is a huge violation of Occam's Razor.

[carapace]

Ockham's Razor doesn't apply in adversarial situations.

- - - -

I think the primary risk these folks are worried about is loss of control. And in turn, that's because they're all people for whom the system has more-or-less worked.

Poor people are worried the risk that the rich will keep the economic windfall to themselves and not share it.

[dahdum]

> I think more realistically they'd shut up about the risk and downplay it a lot.

AI is an existential threat to search engines like Google, social media (FB, Twitter), advertising networks, and other massive multinationals. Many other industries, including academia is threatened as well. They’d all rather strangle the AI baby in the crib now then let it grow up and threaten them.

They believe the only way it should be allowed to grow is under their benevolent control.