Matt Wolfe examines whether AI existential risk warnings are a paid conspiracy. He cites physicist Sabine Hossenfelder's disclosure that she was offered money to warn AI will kill us, then distinguishes her from genuine safety researchers at Anthropic and OpenAI. The real problem: competitive pressure makes an industry-wide pause impossible, so talent needs to shift toward alignment work instead of shareholder returns.
Chapters
There are people that are saying that this is a psyop. People are getting paid to go around and be sort of anti-AI. And to be fair, some of that is happening. In fact, Sabine Hossenfelder here, she actually put out a whole YouTube video about how she was offered money to tell you that AI will kill us. But I don't think these guys at Anthropic, and I don't think Jacob Pachocki over at OpenAI, I don't think any of these guys are part of that. These are the people that are working on alignment and safety. So their whole job is to sit around and sort of map out the worst-case scenarios. And when you live in that bubble, you're probably gonna freak yourself out a little bit. But I also don't think we should be ignoring these types of people either. I think we could be making a huge mistake by just claiming psyop and ignoring them and calling them doomers and saying, shut up and go away. It would be lovely if these companies could all agree to slow down together, but I don't think that's gonna happen. It's like this arms race that we're all caught into. So I think that's like a lovely altruistic idea to all like, hey, let's all pause, let's all slow down, let's think this through before we develop these things further. But come on, does anybody believe that's really going to play out that way? Let's put more people, let's put more brainpower on solving for alignment and not solving for shareholder value. I don't know, I'm totally talking way above my pay grade right now, but this is the biggest story of the moment in the AI world.