I know it’s not the point of your article, but you lost me at saying you would have a 2% chance of killing millions of people, if you had that intention.
Without getting into tactics, I would venture to say there are quite a few groups across the world with that intention, which include various parties of high intelligence and significant resources, and zero of those have achieved it (if we exclude, say, heads of state).
Spoilers for the film Ex Machina below.
Ex Machina made this point the critical failure of humanity to contain AGI. It was an original spin, given that Hollywood typically depicts Androids’ lack of emotional capacity as their main weak point. However, it made the same mistake as Jurassic Park and all other “evil AGI conquers the planet” films (Terminator, Colossus, War Games) in that no reasonable safety precautions are taken.
Personally, I would like to see (and I’m trying to write) a story where intelligent and capable researchers make significant efforts to contain AGI (and likely still fail).
I prefer safe washing, but vote that we make a huge divisive issue over it, ultimately splitting the community in two.
This reminds me of the time I asked IT fix a typo on a website at work (big Fortune 100 company) and they gave me an estimate of like $20,000.
One of his complaints was that he asked his supervisor what evidence she would accept that the AI is sentient, and she replied “None.”
I thought that was a fair question, though her answer is understandable as she is predispositioned to rule out sentience for what is considered to be a highly sophisticated chatbot.
Any takes on a better answer to this question? How to disprove sentience for a very sophisticated (perhaps Turing-test passing) chat bot?
None of this is sufficient to survive the heat death of the universe.