Comment by _heimdall
3 days ago
Said CEOs are horribly biased, they have fiduciary responsibilities that make them useless judges on the relative risk/reward balance of LLMs and AI, if we get there.
3 days ago
Said CEOs are horribly biased, they have fiduciary responsibilities that make them useless judges on the relative risk/reward balance of LLMs and AI, if we get there.
Claiming your product increases the risk of extinction doesn't sound like something someone would do if it were just for fiduciary duty.
Consider the amount of debt they have piled up. If you don't believe your company can lice up to said debt or the current valuation, and if you do believe fear can lead to government capture that would protect your company from said liabilities, fiduciary liability would incentivize you to push the extinction risk narrative.
It’s something you would do if you were desperate for regulatory capture to make competitors go away
Read it as "please regulate us so we have a plausible explanation of why we're missing our growth/revenue projections by several orders of magnitude"
"Our product is so amazingly powerful that it just might result in the extinction of the human race."
A lot of people will only hear half of that sentence. Semantically speaking.
The old "might end the human race" trick used by cynical promoters throughout history
If only investors and buyers weren't so vulnerable to the "might kill you and everyone you ever cared about" ploy
4 replies →
Ok.
So… follow out your own line of thinking. Altman and Dario and whoever is at Google are all saying the same thing, and are all required to make moves better for business…
Scaring tue gov into regulation - is good for business.
Another mark in the “they clearly want regulatory capture” column.
On what regulatory capture actually looks like: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/09/wh...
How about what all the other people who are not CEOs but are talking about this?
Are we only going to accept arguments based on guessing at motivations or should we perhaps also evaluate the actual material facts?
4 replies →
> and whoever is at Google
Reminds me of “this guy Diego…”
https://gist.github.com/vyp/8c7a58d2f9a521070283
1 reply →
If their activities materially increase the probability of human extinction and this poses a risk of potential loss to shareholders then they must disclose it.
So just Elon & Google, mainly?
If their activities materially increase the probability of human extinction, is there any reason that they should not be treated as invading aliens, or doomsday apocalypse-cult terrorists?
Like, why on Earth would anyone tolerate someone in the same train car playing with a grenade?
5 replies →
it does if global extinction is the only debt management strategy left
The "increases the risk of extinction" bit is 100% marketing BS that they're spewing to pump up their stock prices and encourage the government to shutout foreign competition (who would use this ability against the USA, of course ).
They've played you like a fiddle.