Joscha Bach

But when he wrote this Times article in which he warned about AI being likely to kill everybody and that we would need to stop its development or halt it, I think there is a risk that he's taking that somebody might get violent if they read this and get really, really scared. Right.

But when he wrote this Times article in which he warned about AI being likely to kill everybody and that we would need to stop its development or halt it, I think there is a risk that he's taking that somebody might get violent if they read this and get really, really scared. Right.

But when he wrote this Times article in which he warned about AI being likely to kill everybody and that we would need to stop its development or halt it, I think there is a risk that he's taking that somebody might get violent if they read this and get really, really scared. Right.

So I think that there is some consideration that he's making where he's already going in this direction where he has to take responsibility if something happens and people get harmed. And the reason why Ted Kaczynski did this was that from his own perspective, technological society cannot be made sustainable. It's doomed to fail. It's going to need change.

So I think that there is some consideration that he's making where he's already going in this direction where he has to take responsibility if something happens and people get harmed. And the reason why Ted Kaczynski did this was that from his own perspective, technological society cannot be made sustainable. It's doomed to fail. It's going to need change.

So I think that there is some consideration that he's making where he's already going in this direction where he has to take responsibility if something happens and people get harmed. And the reason why Ted Kaczynski did this was that from his own perspective, technological society cannot be made sustainable. It's doomed to fail. It's going to need change.

to an environmental and eventually also a human holocaust in which we die because of the environmental destruction, the destruction of our food chains, the pollution of the environment. And so from Kaczynski's perspective, we need to stop industrialization, we need to stop technology, we need to go back because he didn't see a way moving forward.

to an environmental and eventually also a human holocaust in which we die because of the environmental destruction, the destruction of our food chains, the pollution of the environment. And so from Kaczynski's perspective, we need to stop industrialization, we need to stop technology, we need to go back because he didn't see a way moving forward.

to an environmental and eventually also a human holocaust in which we die because of the environmental destruction, the destruction of our food chains, the pollution of the environment. And so from Kaczynski's perspective, we need to stop industrialization, we need to stop technology, we need to go back because he didn't see a way moving forward.

And I suspect that in some sense there's a similarity in Eliezer's thinking to this kind of fear about progress. And I'm not dismissive about this at all. I take it quite seriously.

And I suspect that in some sense there's a similarity in Eliezer's thinking to this kind of fear about progress. And I'm not dismissive about this at all. I take it quite seriously.

And I suspect that in some sense there's a similarity in Eliezer's thinking to this kind of fear about progress. And I'm not dismissive about this at all. I take it quite seriously.

And I think that there is a chance that could happen that if we build machines that get control over processes that are crucial for the regulation of life on Earth, and we no longer have agency to influence what's happening there, that this might create large-scale disasters for us.

And I think that there is a chance that could happen that if we build machines that get control over processes that are crucial for the regulation of life on Earth, and we no longer have agency to influence what's happening there, that this might create large-scale disasters for us.

And I think that there is a chance that could happen that if we build machines that get control over processes that are crucial for the regulation of life on Earth, and we no longer have agency to influence what's happening there, that this might create large-scale disasters for us.

I don't think that's useful. I think that from a practical perspective, you have to bet always on the timelines in which you are alive. It doesn't make sense to have a financial bet in which you bet that the financial system is going to disappear, right? Because there cannot be any payout for you.

I don't think that's useful. I think that from a practical perspective, you have to bet always on the timelines in which you are alive. It doesn't make sense to have a financial bet in which you bet that the financial system is going to disappear, right? Because there cannot be any payout for you.

I don't think that's useful. I think that from a practical perspective, you have to bet always on the timelines in which you are alive. It doesn't make sense to have a financial bet in which you bet that the financial system is going to disappear, right? Because there cannot be any payout for you.

So in principle, you only need to bet on the timelines in which you're still around or people that you matter about or things that you matter about, maybe consciousness on Earth. But there is a deeper issue for me personally, and that is, I don't think that life on Earth is about humans. I don't think it's about human aesthetics.

So in principle, you only need to bet on the timelines in which you're still around or people that you matter about or things that you matter about, maybe consciousness on Earth. But there is a deeper issue for me personally, and that is, I don't think that life on Earth is about humans. I don't think it's about human aesthetics.