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

Added to korrents 6 Sept 2026 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Where this collides

• In tension with

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

  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