Many of your quotes are not directly demonstrating x-risk concern per se.
Agreed the keyword probe on takeover was too narrow. But loss of control and x-risk aren’t the same thing, and my “<1%” was about the later.
I went back and read with Opus the 64 submissions our tool tags under “AI pursuing its own goals”, and only ~9 frame it in truly existential terms: extinction, human disempowerment, uncontrollable ASI (Queensland’s “disempowerment or extinction,” CIGI’s “extinction risk to humanity,” Stop AI’s “threat to the human species”). That’s ~0.6% of the 1,534, which is the “<1%” the post refers to.
We talk about this dynamic in the post; very few actors really raise this out loud and dare go to the end of the causal chain, even when they do so privately.
I will still update the relevant sections and add more caveats, so thanks :)
Thanks for running an independent analysis.
Many of your quotes are not directly demonstrating x-risk concern per se.
Agreed the keyword probe on takeover was too narrow. But loss of control and x-risk aren’t the same thing, and my “<1%” was about the later.
I went back and read with Opus the 64 submissions our tool tags under “AI pursuing its own goals”, and only ~9 frame it in truly existential terms: extinction, human disempowerment, uncontrollable ASI (Queensland’s “disempowerment or extinction,” CIGI’s “extinction risk to humanity,” Stop AI’s “threat to the human species”). That’s ~0.6% of the 1,534, which is the “<1%” the post refers to.
We talk about this dynamic in the post; very few actors really raise this out loud and dare go to the end of the causal chain, even when they do so privately.
I will still update the relevant sections and add more caveats, so thanks :)