Demis Hassabis

The reason I don't is because I think it would imply a level of precision that is not there.

So I don't know how people are getting their PDoom numbers.

I think it's a kind of a little bit of a ridiculous notion because what I would say is it's definitely non-zero and it's probably non-negligible.

So that in itself is pretty sobering.

And my view is it's just hugely uncertain, right?

What these technologies are going to be able to do, how fast are they going to take off, how controllable they're going to be.

Some things may turn out to be, and hopefully, like way easier than we thought, right?

But it may be there's some really hard problems that are harder than we guessed today.

And I think we don't know that for sure.

And so under those conditions of a lot of uncertainty, but huge stakes both ways.

On the one hand, we could solve all diseases, energy problems, the scarcity problem, and then travel to the stars and consciousness of the stars and maximum human flourishing.

On the other hand is this sort of P doom scenarios.

So given the uncertainty around it and the importance of it, it's clear to me the only rational, sensible approach is to proceed with cautious optimism.

So we want the benefits, of course, and all of the amazing things that AI can bring.

And actually, I would be really worried for humanity if given the other challenges that we have, climate, aging, resources, all of that, if I didn't know something like AI was coming down the line, right?

How would we solve all those other problems?

I think it's hard.

So I think it could be amazingly transformative for good.

But on the other hand, you know, there are these risks that we know are there, but we can't quite quantify.

So the best thing to do is to use the scientific method to do more research to try and more precisely define those risks and, of course, address them.