Other than snark, do you have a good argument? We know that technology can be error-prone, and LLMs fail in a great plethora of ways, but you are trying to sell an AI Doom narrative. I have never bought the idea that AI will be airgapped, because the whole paradigm of Yudkowsky at al. is ludicrous and even within it airgapping was a strawman of a technique (they argue that a truly dangerous AI will get itself out regardless).
> they are entirely aligned with human morals (you know, all those morals we all agree on)
Maybe this is a good cause to reassess the premise of alignment as a valuable goal? I know that at least some alignist fanatics admit [1] it's a religious project to bring humanity under the rule of a common ideologically monolithic governance to forever banish the evils of competition etc., and it's intellectually coherent, but evil from my point of view. Naturally this is the exact sort of disagreement about morals that precludes the possibility of alignment of a single AI both to my and to your values.
> they are advancing at a totally predictable rate, and we never see unexpected behaviors from them.
Since when is this a requirement for technology to be allowed?
> Besides, they can only be wielded by people who we trust have good intentions.
What, other than status quo bias, makes you tolerate, I dunno, the existence of cryptography?
1. https://twitter.com/RokoMijic/status/1660450229043249154
> they are entirely aligned with human morals (you know, all those morals we all agree on)
Maybe this is a good cause to reassess the premise of alignment as a valuable goal? I know that at least some alignist fanatics admit [1] it's a religious project to bring humanity under the rule of a common ideologically monolithic governance to forever banish the evils of competition etc., and it's intellectually coherent, but evil from my point of view. Naturally this is the exact sort of disagreement about morals that precludes the possibility of alignment of a single AI both to my and to your values.
> they are advancing at a totally predictable rate, and we never see unexpected behaviors from them.
Since when is this a requirement for technology to be allowed?
> Besides, they can only be wielded by people who we trust have good intentions.
What, other than status quo bias, makes you tolerate, I dunno, the existence of cryptography?
1. https://twitter.com/RokoMijic/status/1660450229043249154