‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Feds Target AI Critics as "Foreign Agents"

396 points · 457 comments · nmeagent

  1. surfmike · · focus · HN ↗
    When the CEOs of these companies are saying that we will risk extinction and jobs will be decimated, why do you even need a "foreign agent"?
    1. godwinson__4-8 · · focus · HN ↗
      Yet everyone laughed at the Google engineer who thought the LLM was sentient and it was being tortured...

      People just pick and choose what they want to hear when it suits them. The fact is most people thought AI was a joke. Now they realize it does React better than them they want it outlawed.

      It's their right to pursue their electoral and economic self-interest but it's really not like the average voter is more principled than the average tech CEO at this point.

      This fed was voted in by this public. Maybe stop lionizing what other people think and think for yourself.

      Do you think we risk extinction now more than ever because of AI? A simple refrain from slippery slope will show most AI doomerism is bordering on psychosis.

      I haven't seen one convincing model of AI existential risk. Can anyone offer one?

      1. Zambyte · · focus · HN ↗
        It's long, but I recommend watching this video[0]. I believe the person being interviewed has one of the most lucid understanding of the potential futures regarding if AI is allowed to continue or not.

        [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=_g4l7YkDQwA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=_g4l7YkDQwA

        1. godwinson__4-8 · · focus · HN ↗
          This show is trash are you going to recommend I get medical advice from Joe Rogan next?

          Non domain expert sitting there making Pikachu face while deeply questionable alleged domain expert rambles on and on for hours is such a low form of information.

          Like please stop watching this. It&#x27;s the same trash format the guy just talks in a soft English accent so his mediocrity is less obvious. You can do better.

          What happened to debates? What&#x27;s up with soft ball interviews and people going on and on for hours unchallenged? What&#x27;s the point of listening to someone not willing to subject themselves to cross examination?

          1. Zambyte · · focus · HN ↗
            You said:

            &gt; I haven&#x27;t seen one convincing model of AI existential risk. Can anyone offer one?

            I apologize for answering. This is the only episode of this podcast I have ever watched, and I have watched it four times now. The person being interviewed knows what they&#x27;re talking about. You would learn from them.

            1. kortilla · · focus · HN ↗
              But why do you think they know what they’re talking about? That’s the problem with that show. It platforms people with no guardrails to stop quacks.
              1. ipaddr · · focus · HN ↗
                Sometimes the most interesting people are people with ideas outside of the same groupthink circle. Everyone who has changed society has been called a quack by a square.
              2. Zambyte · · focus · HN ↗
                As much as I hate appeal-to-authority based arguments, it&#x27;s basically the only way I can see how to answer this without just totally rehashing the things he says in the video. He was an AI forecaster at OpenAI for several years. (I think 2019? to 2024). He quit on the grounds that OpenAI (as well as the rest of the industry) were &#x2F; are throttling towards RSI irresponsibly, and even refused to sign an anti disparagement clause on exit at the risk of losing 2 million dollars (80% of his family&#x27;s net worth) so he could talk freely about OpenAI. Now he runs a non-profit that does AI forecasting and advocacy.

                <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aifutures.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aifutures.org&#x2F;

                <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ai-2027.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ai-2027.com&#x2F;

          2. ipaddr · · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

            1. watwut · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; Joe Rogan was more correct than Fauci&#x27;s advice.

              No he was not

              1. ipaddr · · focus · HN ↗
                Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times and declined to answer questions during a heated July 29, 2026, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.

                He was wrong about so many things and now refuses to talk. Also got the first pre pardon for crimes undiscovered against him.

            2. godwinson__4-8 · · focus · HN ↗
              Debates can be better than CNN gotcha questions, you know that right?

              At the end of the day a debate is only as good as the interlocutors. I wouldn&#x27;t advocate spectating two people screaming at each other either.

              It&#x27;s just sad that I can&#x27;t even point to an instructive example here. This is part of my frustration. I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;ve seen a good contemporary debate in a long time.

              1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

                [deleted]

            3. guelo · · focus · HN ↗
              I think the reason covid became politicized is the same individualistic vs communitarian tension in all other american politics.

                Individualistic: vaccines don&#x27;t help the young
                Communitarian: vaccinating everybody creates herd immunity that protects the community
                
                Individualistic: Masks don&#x27;t protect the wearer 
                Communitarian: Masks reduce the virus the wearer breathes out reducing the harm to others
              
              On ivermectin Rogan was just wrong.

              On lab-leak, Rogan pushed it hard based only on circumstantial evidence while Fauci thought natural spillover was more likely but didn&#x27;t rule out lab leak. I don&#x27;t think we&#x27;ll ever know for certain.

              1. ipaddr · · focus · HN ↗
                I think we know: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.whitehouse.gov&#x2F;lab-leak-true-origins-of-covid-19...
                1. guelo · · focus · HN ↗
                  Who should I trust, the extremely political Trump white house that never misses a chance to create division and attack perceived enemies. Or the scientists and even US intelligence agencies that disagree with each other and continue to debate the topic?
                  1. ipaddr · · focus · HN ↗
                    From my understanding this intel came from US intelligence agencies. I don&#x27;t think scientists are against this viewpoint. In fact many spoke out against the pengina &#x2F; wwt market theory.

                    You should believe the intelligence agencies.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.