David Scott Krueger

• David Scott Krueger 3 May 2026 4:18 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: WhatsTrueKittycat’s comment on: Rea­sons not to trust AI

  Additionally, it is unclear to me whether these sorts of failure modes are fundamentally due to alien concepts, or whether they are better explained by differences in sensory processing architectures. The latter is potentially tractable and seems less likely to lead to misbehavior in the limit, while the former would represent a more severe and potentially intractable mismatch in ontologies.

  This is a good point, and I’m not aware of research asking this question as phrased.

Reflec­tions on InkHaven

On to­day’s panel with Bernie Sanders

The AI x-risk law­suit wait­ing to happen

On the poli­ti­cal fea­si­bil­ity of stop­ping AI

AI might sur­prise it­self by go­ing rogue

Diary of a “Doomer”: 12+ years ar­gu­ing about AI risk (part 3: the LLM era)

• David Scott Krueger 26 Apr 2026 4:56 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Luc Brinkman’s comment on: Rea­sons not to trust AI

  In a word: InkHaven.
  
  But seriously, I’m still working full-time on Evitable.com and so am trying to churn out my daily blog posts FAST. There are topics I know I have things to say about, and I try to get them down in words in ~1-2 hours tops. In this case, the motivation is something like: “It’s annoying when people make behaviorist arguments about how AIs are more aligned/​​trustworthy than people”.

Rea­sons not to trust AI

Diary of a “Doomer”: 12+ years ar­gu­ing about AI risk (part 2)

• David Scott Krueger 23 Apr 2026 22:14 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: JBlack’s comment on: Marginal Risk is BS

  Well, I did say “Naively”… but yes I agree the analysis was too naive, and I will edit the post. You make a good point that it can be improved by considering that harms from AI (especially large-scale ones like x-risk) are overdetermined when there are multiple developers. The naive analysis is more accurate when the risk is smaller.

  As a side note, if the risk from a single project is so large, then the first project is probably disincentivized at the individual level (would you really want to take an 80% risk of extinction?), and it’s a “pure” coordination problem, like a stag hunt, rather than an incentive problem (like prisoner’s dilema).

  Another way the “naive” calculation can be is wrong (which is the main one I had in mind) is if the risks of different projects are correlated, which they are, e.g. because they are all using similar technology.

• David Scott Krueger 23 Apr 2026 22:00 UTC

  3 points

  0

  in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: Marginal Risk is BS

  I’m not going after particular people’s justifications for their work; I’m going after the institutionalization of “marginal risk” as a relevant concept and the way it justifies unacceptable risk-taking.

What hap­pens af­ter we stop AI?

Marginal Risk is BS

My Last 7 Blog Posts: a weekly round-up

Stop AI Now

• David Scott Krueger 19 Apr 2026 9:41 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Post-Scarcity is bullshit

  I think it’s helpful to disaggregate things sometimes, and e.g. look at what trends might underly this general trend we observe

Stop AI

Idea Economics

• David Scott Krueger 17 Apr 2026 6:36 UTC

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: Post-Scarcity is bullshit

  greater wealth hasn’t changed the picture tremendously

  I don’t think I made that claim anywhere in my piece.