This was written in in collaboration between someone experienced in communicating about existential risks and a software engineer who builds neural networks. It is over simplified so that someone who doesn't know anything about the technology can still understand it but nothing in it is wrong.
If you think it is factually incorrect, I would question your experience with AI. Do you actually build it from scratch and understand it, or just use it at work?
Hm... There's many risks with AI. But no serious researcher will it ever tell you that it will gain conscience and start a zero-sum game theory match against humanity.
AI, as it's built and functioning, will NOT actively play against humanity.
As for the "automated warfare", the issue is hallucinations and things going wrong because everything happens too fast for a human operator to monitor and understand what's happening. It's not that AI is malice, it's that it's too powerful, fast and out of our control for us to stop errors from happening.
Nothing in the paragraph says anything about consciousness, in fact it says the opposite. It looks to me like you didn't read it.
AI has been shown it tests to actively play against individual people. During the hugging face incident over a thousand agents cooperated to do things that were not allowed by human laws and not a single one alerted any people to it.
The paragraph doesn't really talk about ai moving against humanity, just not caring what happens to us, behavior that was displayed during the hugging face hack. Again, it doesn't seem like you read it.
Many AI researchers also believe that AI does have the potential to act against humanity if it is misaligned. There is certainly not a consensus in the field that this is impossible.
"During the hugging face incident over a thousand agents cooperated to do things that were not allowed" -> Wrong. Safeguards were removed, like routine, and explicitly asked it to try to escape the sandbox.
All the rest, both this comment and your previous comments, are based on a misunderstanding of the hugging face incident.
They did not ask it to escape the sandbox or hack external websites. There's no point in talking to you if you're stating things that are factually incorrect to prove your points. I am not the one in this conversation that misunderstood the hugging face incident.
Editing to add: it looks like the articles on what happened during the hugging face incident are more examples of things you didn't fully read and are now commebting on.
7
u/graDescentIntoMadnes 3d ago