Mo Gawdat

This is wrong.

I would love to see that.

I don't think it's mathematically plausible, to be honest.

The arms race, especially across nations, is going to drive us to continue to develop AI more and more.

But allow me to consult with you on another possible scenario, right?

Everyone that develops an incredibly intelligent AI would deploy it.

Correct?

So it's unlikely that anyone would find a way to, you know, build a better decision maker in wargaming and not deploy it.

Okay?

That prisoner's dilemma, if you want, would mean that their competitors are

would either have to deploy a similarly intelligent AI or they'll become irrelevant, uncompetitive, correct?

So what that means is in that world, we end up with AI making most of the decisions, super intelligent AI making most of the decisions.

Which, would you agree?

This is a very simple prisoner's dilemma.

If we're competing for intelligence supremacy, by definition, when we achieve it, we deploy it.

Okay.

I call that the fourth inevitable.

Now, with that in mind, there must be a moment in the future, near or far, where every important decision is made by an AI.

Now, here's the question.

Most of my dearest colleagues, I mean, when I had Jeffrey Hinton on the film, he openly says, we are, you know, we didn't calculate well that there is a 10 to 20% possibility that those machines are going to wipe us out, right?