← All topics

takeover risk

2 captures, most recent first.

Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs

— saved image

Elias Schmied @reconfigurthing . 1h
To be clear, do you mean to say that you changed your position or that the initial statement was accidentally imprecise/misleading?
[1 reply, 140 views]

Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs . 1h
In that interview I also said

> I still think that a lot of the risk, maybe probably the majority of the takeover risk, comes from AIs smarter than the ones I've been talking about here.

I have now shifted to thinking that maybe twice as much risk comes from these later AIs as from earlier AIs.  This is like a 1-2x shift from my previous position about the relative importance of these types of risk, which isn't that big.

So mostly I think my initial statement was not representative of what I actually thought.

For reference, the fuller version of the quote is

> Like, five years ago I thought of misalignment risk from AIs that were capable of obsoleting AGI researchers as a really hard problem that you'd need some really galaxy-brained fundamental insights in order to resolve. Whereas now, to me the situation feels a lot more like, man, we just really know a list of 40 things where, if you did the 40 things — none of which seem that hard — you'd probably be able to not have very much of your problem.

And the full interview is here
[embedded video thumbnail: a person speaking in front of a brick wall and plant, podcast-style]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Continuation of the Buck Shlegeris AI-control thread: Elias Schmied asks for clarification, and Shlegeris gives a detailed explanation distinguishing the risk from earlier vs. smarter/later AIs (a modest 1-2x shift), reproduces the fuller original quote about the '40 things' framing for misalignment risk, and links to the full interview video.

ai safetyai controlbuck shlegerismisalignment risktakeover risk

Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs

— saved image

Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs . 1h
I still think it seems great for AI developers to competently implement safety measures and processes that we do know about; they definitely do not seem to have achieved this to an adequate standard so far...
[1 repost, 10 likes, 169 views]

Jacques @JacquesThibs . 59m
Agree that it probably fails at ASI. The worst-case may be that those techniques just allow us to hide the problem well and long enough such that it's too late when the world chooses to take decisive action to pause and come together for fundamental alignment breakthroughs.
[2 likes, 49 views]

Herbie Bradley @herbiebradley . 1h
IMO the current situation seems to support a position that it's just 40 not too hard things, so curious what would have caused you to update here
[1 reply, 184 views]

Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs . 1h
[Quoted:] Buck Shlegeris @bshlgrs . 1h
Replying to @reconfigurthing
In that interview I also said

> I still think that a lot of the risk, maybe probably the majority of the takeover risk, ... [cut off]
[1 like, 210 views]

Elias Schmied @reconfigurthing . 1h
To be clear, do you mean to say that you changed your position or that the initial statement was accidentally imprecise/misleading? [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Further continuation of the Buck Shlegeris AI-control thread, with replies from Jacques Thibodeau (worst-case: safety techniques hide the problem until it's too late), Herbie Bradley (pushing back that current events support the '40 things' framing), and Elias Schmied asking Shlegeris to clarify whether he changed his position or was just imprecise.

ai safetyai controlbuck shlegeristakeover risktwitter discourse