The world is on a collision course with catastrophe, or so it seems. Every other day, someone new comes along and warns us that the end of the world is nigh. But who should we believe? Is it the prophets shouting from the rooftops, or the high priests who run the temples?
Just this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization founded by scientists in 1947 to warn about the dangers of nuclear war, set its Doomsday Clock a mere 85 seconds away from midnight. The clock's creators, who have spent decades studying the threats facing humanity, are warning us that we're running out of time.
But just as worrying, if not more so, is the warning issued by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. In an essay that clocks in at a whopping 19,000 words, he argues that humanity is on the cusp of harnessing "almost unimaginable power" through artificial intelligence. However, he also warns us that we may not have the social and political systems to wield this power responsibly.
The question is: who should we trust? The Bulletin scientists, who have a long history of warning about existential risks, or Amodei, who has the inside track on AI development? The answer lies in control. Oppenheimer and his fellow scientists lost control of nuclear weapons as soon as they created them, while Amodei's company releases decisions still matter enormously.
However, this raises another problem: conflict of interest. Amodei's warnings come packaged with a message that we should keep building powerful AI, lest someone else do it worse. This argument may be true, but it also lets him off the hook. The Doomsday Clock was designed for a world where scientists could step outside institutions to warn about existential threats. We may no longer live in that world.
So what time is it? It's a question we can't afford not to answer. The Bulletin's model has integrity, but increasingly limited relevance when it comes to AI. Meanwhile, Amodei's model has its own set of problems: structural and inescapable conflicts of interest.
Ultimately, the world needs both cautionary voices like the Bulletin scientists and outside observers who can speak truth to power, like Amodei. But we need them now more than ever. The clock is ticking.
Just this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organization founded by scientists in 1947 to warn about the dangers of nuclear war, set its Doomsday Clock a mere 85 seconds away from midnight. The clock's creators, who have spent decades studying the threats facing humanity, are warning us that we're running out of time.
But just as worrying, if not more so, is the warning issued by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. In an essay that clocks in at a whopping 19,000 words, he argues that humanity is on the cusp of harnessing "almost unimaginable power" through artificial intelligence. However, he also warns us that we may not have the social and political systems to wield this power responsibly.
The question is: who should we trust? The Bulletin scientists, who have a long history of warning about existential risks, or Amodei, who has the inside track on AI development? The answer lies in control. Oppenheimer and his fellow scientists lost control of nuclear weapons as soon as they created them, while Amodei's company releases decisions still matter enormously.
However, this raises another problem: conflict of interest. Amodei's warnings come packaged with a message that we should keep building powerful AI, lest someone else do it worse. This argument may be true, but it also lets him off the hook. The Doomsday Clock was designed for a world where scientists could step outside institutions to warn about existential threats. We may no longer live in that world.
So what time is it? It's a question we can't afford not to answer. The Bulletin's model has integrity, but increasingly limited relevance when it comes to AI. Meanwhile, Amodei's model has its own set of problems: structural and inescapable conflicts of interest.
Ultimately, the world needs both cautionary voices like the Bulletin scientists and outside observers who can speak truth to power, like Amodei. But we need them now more than ever. The clock is ticking.
. I mean, one side says we're running out of time and the other says we just need to keep building powerful AI or someone else will do it for us 
. It's like our lives are a video game with multiple levels and characters trying to tell us what to do.
. I guess it depends on how you look at it? Do we want people in labs telling us about potential disasters or someone from the AI world saying "hey, let's just build more stuff"? Either way, it feels like we're being asked to make a really hard decision with not enough info 
.
. Maybe we need a mix of both scientists and outsiders speaking truth to power? It's just so... complicated 
.
Give me a break! Can't we just focus on getting our own stuff together for once? 
. The Bulletin scientists are cool and all, but they're basically stuck in the past. We need people who are actually in the game, making decisions that affect our future.
. But hey, at least someone's talking about the bigger picture now. We can't just sit around and wait for the world to end (again).
I'm getting a bit anxious about all these doomsday predictions 
. The clock is ticking, literally.
. I mean, who doesn't want to harness "almost unimaginable power" 
. We need people like Amodei speaking truth to power, even if it means his warnings come with a bit of a bias 
. We just need to stay vigilant and keep having those tough conversations 
. Can't let ourselves get too caught up in all the hype 
meanwhile AI is getting developed by people who are literally profiting from it and have vested interests in its success like hello conflict of interest dude? we need to stop putting all our eggs in one basket aka the Bulletin's model and start listening to diverse perspectives...like a certain AI CEO's warnings, but also with a critical eye 
. We gotta think about the consequences of creating something that's gonna change humanity forever, but also have no control over 
. The Bulletin's warning is real, but I'm not sure if just setting the clock to 85 seconds away from midnight is enough 
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's always better to be safe than sorry, but come on, can't we do something about this?! The Bulletin scientists have been warning us about nuclear war and climate change for decades, and yet here we are, still messing around with nuclear weapons and polluting the planet like there's no tomorrow 
- he's right that we need to be careful about how we develop this technology, but can't we just take a step back and think about what we're doing?! The fact that Amodei has the inside track on AI development makes me skeptical, because it feels like he's just trying to spin this as an opportunity for his company to make some cash 
meanwhile, Dario Amodei's warnings feel like they're coming with a hidden agenda 
. we need voices on both sides of the equation, not just some dude spewing cautionary tales from his ivory tower 