The AI-extinction position is non-scientific: it offers no testable hypothesis, nothing that would falsify it, and no threshold for danger.

Added to korrents 2 Sept 2026 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Where this collides

• In tension with

  The probability that AI destroys human civilization is about 10%.

  Andreessen says the extinction position offers no testable hypothesis, nothing that would falsify it and no threshold for danger. Fridman puts the probability at about ten percent. A number is not by itself a test, so the charge survives the answer — and it is now a charge against a stated figure rather than against a vague dread.

Shared subject first, then similar wording. They may agree or disagree.

• A human being is not an AGI: we lack a huge amount of knowledge and rely on continual learning instead, so continual learning is what superintelligence should mean. ISIlya Sutskever25 Nov 2025AI alignment
• A model that looks smarter and better-behaved while getting better at hiding unwanted actions is the scary combination for AI safety. ZMZvi Mowshowitz9 Sept 2026AI alignment
• A player coach manages a smaller team while building together with it, rather than sitting in an ivory tower doing performance reviews and alignment meetings. RGRon Goldin9 Jun 2026AI alignment
• A superintelligence needs no consciousness, emotions or malice to be dangerous; a goal system slightly misaligned with ours is enough. ÉTÉmile P. Torres24 Oct 2017AI alignment
• A validated theory of intelligence may be necessary for achieving genuine AI alignment. KKKevin Kelly17 Aug 2026AI alignment

On the map

Open the map on its own page