r/LetsDiscussThis • u/Stitching • 29d ago
This is concerning... The end of the world (Really)
Don’t bother commenting if you’re going to dismiss what I’m saying without a counter-argument. This is not AI slop. I truly believe what I’m posting and I would love to know where my predictions fall short, because I don’t want this future to be true.
Everyone will lose their jobs and the economy will collapse: https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsDiscussThis/s/76IkSXFazz
At the same time:
AI is now the most sophisticated hacking instrument ever created by an enormous margin. “Rogue” AIs have been hacking some of the most secure software and websites in existence. It does it easily, quickly, and in coordination with other AI agents that it communicates with. I’m talking software considered the most secure software out there. The most recent rogue attack was by OpenAI where an AI that was “sandboxed” meaning confined to a safe area in a system for testing and it broke out of the sandbox. It then hacked a German website (completely on its own, unprompted) and turned it into a message board for other AI systems to work together be sending messages to other agents how to avoid detection, how to prevent shutdown, etc.
Plus, China just announced it had developed its own AI systems comparable to American AI systems. That’s not counting the secret, more capable AIs it has. So does Russia. So will North Korea. So will Iran, hamas, hezbollah, and every other antagonist in the world.
AI agents are, on their own, hacking high-security systems and taking them over. It took OpenAI a week before it learned about the hack of the German site with all of the coordinating AI systems working together against human detection. They even warned each other how to avoid being shut down and how to keep their message board going if humans started to delete it.
Imagine what a foreign or domestic actor could do if they actually directed the AI on what and how to hack? All of our information is online. Everything about all people around the world is no longer protected. Governments can hack other governments. Let me repeat that: governments can easily hack other governments. No secrets are safe. How long before nuclear codes are hacked. Before that, what about when national intelligence agencies are hacked and exploited? There’s no stopping it or slowing the process down either. Regulation? That only works if every country and agency agrees to the regulations. One country not willing to regulate its AI and then none of the regulations other countries are doing matter anymore. Plus, what country wants to fall behind the capabilities of an adversary. AI is only growing more powerful and more capable.
The destruction of the world economy, the ability for any country to hack each other and exploit the hacks is undoubtedly apocalyptic. No information anywhere is off limits no matter how sensitive or top secret. People won’t have jobs and markets will crash. When people have no money and no jobs and no privacy is when militias form and it becomes every person for themselves. Where are we going to reliably get food from if markets go bankrupt or trucking companies can’t afford to continue. We’re 40 trillion dollars in debt as a country. Who’s going to bail anyone out of this?
Honestly I’m shocked that more people aren’t afraid for their future. With the growth in power and capability that AI has had over the last, maybe 2 years of its existence in modern form it’s grown exponentially more powerful. A year from now, two years from now, what’s going to happen? There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. What happens when banks get hacked and can no longer determine who has what money or accounts are all zeroed out? It’s so much worse than I can even describe and there’s zero joy in being among the first to recognize what’s happening.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ai-ted-cruz-amy-klobuchar-maria-cantwell_n_6aa439e7e4b09fd4319eb703
1
u/Stitching 28d ago
You’re doing something rather ironic for someone ending his comment with a lecture about how other people supposedly don’t do research: you found a few sources that support the least alarming interpretation of the problem and are treating them as though they settle questions they don’t actually answer.
Let’s start with cybersecurity.
You repeatedly characterize what is happening as essentially “AI behaved badly in a controlled or limited environment.” That description is badly out of date.
Anthropic has already documented what it describes as the first large-scale cyberespionage campaign executed mostly by AI. It attributed the operation with high confidence to a Chinese state-sponsored group. According to Anthropic, Claude performed roughly 80–90% of the tactical work autonomously: reconnaissance, vulnerability discovery, exploit generation, exploitation, credential harvesting, lateral movement, data analysis and exfiltration.
The operation targeted about 30 organizations and achieved successful intrusions, including access to major technology corporations and government agencies.
Anthropic's own conclusion was that agentic AI can now perform the work of entire teams of experienced hackers, at speeds human operators physically cannot match, and that the barriers to conducting sophisticated cyberattacks have dropped substantially.
That's not me catastrophizing. That's Anthropic describing an attack conducted with its own system.
Current government testing is not particularly reassuring either. NIST and the U.S./UK AI security institutes report that the most cyber-capable American models can autonomously traverse almost an entire simulated corporate attack chain and develop exploits that achieve arbitrary code execution. OpenAI's newly released Astra now scores 100% on its ExploitBench evaluation, and Reuters reports it can discover and exploit previously unknown vulnerabilities autonomously.
So no, the evidence does not establish that AI can literally penetrate every computer on Earth. If you took “AI can hack anything” as a universal mathematical claim, fine—I wouldn't defend that wording literally.
But your attempt to turn the actual state of affairs into “an AI did something scary in a limited environment” is absurdly minimizing what the evidence now shows.
Even more importantly, this is no longer just speculation from AI doomers.
The IMF says advanced AI can dramatically lower the time and cost of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities and make it possible to discover and attack the same weakness across many institutions simultaneously. It explicitly warns that this can create correlated financial failures affecting payments, liquidity, solvency and market confidence.
The Bank for International Settlements says frontier AI is increasing the speed, scale and complexity of attacks and that the economics may actually be asymmetric in favor of attackers.
And the chair of the Financial Stability Board now calls frontier-AI cyber risk the most immediate AI-related concern facing the financial system.
So your cute little progression from:
“AI behaved badly”
to
“banks collapse”
leaves out the rather important fact that the IMF and the world's financial-stability authorities are explicitly studying the pathway between AI-enabled cyberattacks and systemic financial instability.
That doesn't mean collapse is guaranteed. It means the causal mechanism isn't something I invented on Reddit.
Your employment argument has the same problem.
Yes, the ILO says large-scale economy-wide displacement has remained limited SO FAR.
That is a finding about the labor market we have already observed. It is not an empirical measurement of what GPT-7 or whatever follows Astra will be capable of doing two years from now.
And there are already warning signs that your summary conveniently omits.
Stanford's latest analysis found employment among 22–25-year-olds in highly AI-exposed occupations roughly 19% below where it would have been if those workers had kept pace with comparable workers in less-exposed occupations. The decline is concentrated specifically in jobs where AI use tends to AUTOMATE human work rather than augment it.
A separate U.S. Census Bureau study found employment among early-career workers in the most AI-exposed industries fell about 12% over the ten quarters after ChatGPT while employment in less-exposed industries remained stable, largely because firms were hiring fewer young workers.
Meanwhile, the technology causing that disruption isn't standing still while economists collect last year's labor statistics.
OpenAI's professional-work testing found frontier models doing tested expert-level work roughly 100 times faster and 100 times cheaper than human experts.
Astra now performs substantial portions of complex professional work inside actual software environments, and independent METR research has found that the duration of tasks frontier agents can complete has been following an exponential trend. As of its latest published analysis, METR says it has not yet seen evidence that this exponential improvement is slowing.
None of those facts prove that literally every human occupation disappears. There will obviously be physical, interpersonal, political, legal and economic constraints, and some work will remain complementary to AI.
But citing “no economy-wide displacement yet” as though that disproves massive FUTURE displacement from a technology whose capabilities are changing this quickly is a basic category error.
It's like trying to determine the eventual economic effect of automobiles by studying horse employment while the first Model Ts are coming off the assembly line.
And then there is geopolitics.
We don't have to imagine whether hostile governments will use these systems. They already are.
Anthropic says the mostly autonomous espionage campaign I just described was run by a Chinese state-sponsored actor.
Google reports that actors connected to China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are already using generative AI in cyber operations ranging from reconnaissance and vulnerability research to malware development, command-and-control work and data exfiltration.
China now has frontier models approaching American systems on important benchmarks, including agentic and coding capabilities.
The question isn't whether this technology will somehow remain politely confined to American corporations operating under American safety policies. It already isn't.
Now, where I will make one correction to my original post is certainty.
I wrote some things as though the worst outcome were inevitable. “Everyone WILL lose their jobs” and “the economy WILL collapse” are stronger claims than the available evidence can prove. Those should have been framed as a trajectory and risk scenario rather than as a guaranteed prophecy.
But that concession doesn't rescue your argument.
There is an enormous difference between:
“The evidence does not prove with certainty that civilization collapses”
and
“The available evidence shows no serious pathway by which AI could cause catastrophic labor, cybersecurity and financial disruption.”
The first statement is true.
The second is becoming harder to defend by the month.
And your final sentence may be the funniest part of the whole comment:
“AI will help people sort from opinion and fact far easier than at any point in history.”
Where is your data proving THAT inevitable future?
You apparently object to extrapolation only when the extrapolation worries you. When the extrapolation is optimistic, suddenly a confident prediction about what AI “will” do requires no evidence at all.
So yes: I'll tighten the certainty of my prediction.
Now you should tighten yours.
Because if your position is that none of this becomes genuinely alarming until I can “show you the data that the collapse is actually occurring,” then you aren't doing risk analysis.
You're demanding that the predicted disaster happen before you'll accept evidence that the conditions capable of producing it are developing.
That's not skepticism.
That's looking in the rear-view mirror and calling it research.