Stuart Russell

So there's just lots of questions.

If that's the future, why are we training people to fit into nine to five office jobs, which won't exist at all?

Sort of, yeah.

It says, at least until we are sure that we can move forward safely, and there's broad scientific consensus on that.

Did it work?

It's hard to say.

I mean, interestingly, there was a related, so what was called the pause statement was March of 23.

So that was when GPT-4 came out, the successor to CHAT-GPT.

So we suggested that there'd be a six-month pause in developing and deploying systems more powerful than GPT-4.

And everyone poo-pooed that idea.

Of course, no one's going to pause anything.

But in fact, there were no systems in the next six months deployed that were more powerful than GPT-4.

Coincidence?

You be the judge.

I would say...

that what we're trying to do is to basically shift the public debate.

You know, there's this bizarre phenomenon that keeps happening in the media where if you talk about these risks,

They will say, oh, you know, there's a fringe of people, you know, called, quote, doomers who think that there's, you know, risk of extinction.

So they always, the narrative is always that, oh, you know, talking about those risks is a fringe thing.

Pretty much all the CEOs of the leading AI companies are.