What a ludicrous reply, to suggest it should be "socially unacceptable" to believe the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment might reveal a scenario that is bad for humans overall.
Of course it would be bad for humanity. “Short humanity and long paperclips”, in my reading, is pro-extinctionism. The specter of Daniel Faggella haunts this site and this industry.
I can only speculate as I didn't write that post, but by my reading they were just stating their belief that AI is likely to lead to human extinction, not that they were happy about that outcome.
If your model of reality includes imminent human extinction, you have some form of imperative to do something about that other than “ZOMG Claude Code”. YMMV
Are you saying that the comment _supported_ human extinction? I think they're just saying they think it's a likely outcome. It doesn't appear to be an endorsement.
Personally, I think there's a worryingly high chance that ourselves or our kids will live in a dead, desertified, apocalyptic hellscape of a planet after we hit 5+ degrees of warming, but saying that doesn't mean I _want_ it to happen. In fact, I would prefer it not to!
Pro-extinctionism (in favor of some “greater conciousness” that spreads across the stars) is a nontrivial minority view among AI people, including some “AI safety” leaders.
One of the reasons that I’m slightly less worried about a climate apocalypse is that there isn’t an equivalent group of people that sees the “inevitability” and concludes that it must be a moral good for the planet to warm 5 degrees. I’d argue that multiple degrees of warming is more inevitable than paperclips, but there’s a serious global effort to mitigate and avoid it anyway!
Given the OP’s general disposition towards AI in other comments I’m not convinced. But I’m happy to admit that absent proof I was being uncharitable— if so, my bad.