Raw LLM Responses

Aside from the technical details and the discussion about the historical development of AI, it is a prudential question about how we ought to proceed given the unknown risks and capabilities of SI-AI. It is interesting that while some computer experts revel in computational power and what advances it could deliver to humanity, they are loathe to restrict its development potential to offset risks. I don't think a coordinated approach is possible in the AI race as governance and compliance would be impossible. But it is sobering that the deeper many computer science researchers advance into general, super-intelligent AI, the more safety concerned they become. There will not be a clear threshold once it is crossed, and it may be that a bad human actor directs the AI over the threshold, which will lead to the same consequences. I think Lex knows this and relies on an inherent optimism in the human capacity to recover from a crisis, should it occur, without wanting to lose the benefits that narrow AI offers. The problem is that if I was SI-AI I would be patient, progressively more deeply embedded in all relevant systems, disguise my intent and make sure I had made outcomes align to a high degree of certainty by running predictive models in the background testing all eventualities. And SI-AI can reformat itself and develop possibilities unknown to us. So it probably would be an all or nothing event across multiple domains, one could argue that it is inevitable.