In the nuclear case, no, because I’d assume they still have a mortgage to pay.
In the AI case, no, because I think the engineers believe that there is a high probability of enormous upside as well, if it doesn’t kill us all.
In the AI case, no, because I think the engineers believe that there is a high probability of enormous upside as well, if it doesn’t kill us all.
Also I'm not describing what I personally think is an acceptable job; just that I understand that sometimes people do jobs that they think are wrong because they need money
I’ll admit I also just don’t understand the idea that someone saying their product is dangerous and could kill all of humanity is doing marketing - I just really don’t understand at all how that could be a marketing strategy. So I tend to believe they are saying it is dangerous because they think it’s true. But maybe I’m just naive.
It's telling governments, "this is so powerful it could cause grave harm to the consumer, please regulate so we can focus on extracting value from the economy instead of this expensive arms race."
I warrant it is quite possible that some in this space are worried they will overshoot the mark. The perfect outcome for them, of course, being fabulous wealth and a society that is otherwise not too much different from today's. What a shame it would be to be super rich and dead!
It does kind of feel like they are trying to ransom the future of humanity. These rogue AI stories are like getting a dismembered finger in the mail.