[reducesuffering]

All the top brass domain experts of these systems, like 95% besides Yann LeCunn, believe it's an existential risk. Nothing has "proved that people are a little too paranoid." Why people listen to HN prognosticators over Hinton, Bengio, Sutskever, Altman, Amodei, Hassabis, etc. is beyond me.

[proc0]

I'm just commenting, and have some basic understanding. It's good to start thinking about it but I seriously doubt GPT or anything that can be built with it can have a direct existential risk, meaning it would somehow free itself and go rogue. Otherwise I don't know how it would be an existential risk (outside of massive impact in society, but that's technically a different problem). My argument hinges on not being able to accidentally stumble upon AGI without a theory first. At least not an AGI that thinks and has agency like a human, with selfish goals.

[Nasrudith]

Existential risk is a doomsday prediction. And we all know the track record of doomsday predictions. 99% of the time it shows a simple lack of a sense of proportion that cannot tell the difference between merely "bad" or "very bad" and "annihilation". A personal bankruptcy is bad but it isn't an existential risk to a person.

[reducesuffering]

99% throughout history. During that time, humanity has gained an accelerating command over our environment; Industrial Revolution to the Information Era. We are increasingly able to create unimaginably powerful things, yet coinciding with the fundamental that it is easier to destroy than create.

Nuclear weapons should dispel anyone of the notion that certain “doomsday” don’t have teeth. We are quite capable of obliterating ourselves out of existence by our unsophisticated control of technical might.