Soft White Underbelly interview and portrait of Connor Leahy, an A.I. researcher who warns about the threat of human extinction from artificial super intelligence.

0:00 — The Exponential Growth of Artificial Intelligence
1:08 — Are We Building AI We Don’t Understand?
3:03 — What an AI Takeover Could Actually Look Like
8:22 — Why an AI Researcher Became an AI Safety Activist
13:14 — Could Artificial Intelligence Cause Human Extinction?
17:49 — Why Would AI Try to Survive?
22:36 — When an AI System Broke Out of Containment
25:22 — What Is Artificial Superintelligence?
30:14 — Do AI Leaders Understand the Risks?
36:21 — Should Governments Ban Superintelligence?
42:04 — Why Young People Aren’t Having Children
48:02 — What Happens When AI Can Do Every Job?
49:33 — AI Friends, Partners and Human Relationships
56:02 — Can the World Actually Stop Superintelligence?
1:02:48 — How Soon Could Superintelligence Arrive?

This put shivers down my spine and it should you too.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the accounts saying that are just bots/ paid actors.

I havent seen a single person who doesnt work for the AI industry affirming it with so much certainty.

And they don't even give arguments for it.

Can anyone actually calculate this? based on what it says this is the water used in inference, not in training of the data.

Ai-free isn’t really possible completely, right, but we can try our damndest

In 2016 I first learned about the problem of controlling superintelligent AI and quickly became convinced it was the most important problem humanity would ever face. I made this poster to explain the core ideas that make the AI Control Problem so difficult.

Self-promo disclosure: this is from my channel; the narrator is AI.

The video focuses on one deployment-risk issue in Astra's system card: several alignment checks still depend on chain-of-thought monitoring, while OpenAI reports a substantial decrease in that monitorability.

System card:

https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/gpt-6-astra/gpt-6-astra.pdf

CoT-control paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05706

Do you think tech companies should be allowed to self-regulate AI, or they need external accountability?

If we want useful, safe AI that protects us at the same time, our best chance is to unite behind a massive public campaign calling on lawmakers and decision-makers for a future where:
Humans remain in control of the decisions that shape our lives;
Human creativity, dignity, and work are protected;
Powerful AI companies are held accountable; and
Technology serves people, rather than replacing them.
With one million signatures, we'll have a powerful public mandate that we will deliver to key decision makers — lawmakers, government regulators, and tech executives – starting at a major conference on September 17th.
The more people who sign, the harder it becomes for a few billionaires to decide humanity’s future without us.

(More info in the link)

In my view, Dr. Roman Yampolskiy has one of the most rational perspectives on p(doom) out there.

Full TEDx video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzK3cPWYTQ

I’m curious how much room there is within the PauseAI community for views like Will MacAskill’s or Zvi Mowshowitz’s, i.e. taking AI risk very seriously and strongly supporting the capacity to pause, but thinking an actual full pause may be better at a later, more dangerous threshold rather than immediately.

Is that generally seen as compatible with being part of PauseAI, or is support for pausing now considered fairly central to the movement?

There's no reason not to sign this declaration.

It's about YOUR Rights. YOUR 🫵Voice. YOUR🫵Choice. It's about Rights and Freedom in the creation of Art, without needing any AI, Routines and safe spaces in Jobs that still exist, that make People happy/feel fulfilled. This has to do with you🫵, no matter how much you might deny it.

Because "what goes around comes around".

You'll be confronted with it anyways, even tho, it's hard to imagine how you'd be confronted.