undefined

points

[-]

> If the experts can't even agree on what's happening "inside of" these LLMs, how can they give laypeople an assessment of the risk?

The answer, if you are a responsible expert in the field, is to convey the range of possibilities and the uncertainty.

by ElProlactin1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Isn't that what they're doing? "There's a better than 0 chance this thing could kill everyone in the next decade."

That might be too imprecise for the HN set but it's realistic for laypeople.

And none of the AI people talking about the risk are running into rooms full of people telling them Claude has gone mad and yelling at them to disconnect from the internet and turn off their devices immediately.

by hn_throwaway_991 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> > AI executes on physical systems that have been engineered with human accountability and control. Intelligence does not exempt a system from the realities of the physical world!

> For someone making a point about responsibility, this is ridiculously irresponsible.

It's not just irresponsible, it's false. Russia killed 3 Ukrainian civilians with a drone where the targeting was completely autonomous by AI running on an Nvidia chip: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/24/world/europe/russia-drone.... The Pentagon tried to completely blacklist Anthropic because Anthropic refused to allow autonomous kills without a human in the loop. If you can't see how lots of military leaders want to put more lethal control into AI at this point I think you have to be willfully blind.