Entropics President: 2 % is likely to bring awful artificial intelligence

While artificial intelligence is becoming an integral part of human life, concerns about its possible consequences have also intensified. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic and one of the key figures in the development of advanced artificial intelligence models, recently stated the possibility of a social disaster caused by the technology in explicit and reflective statements. This view, along with his optimism about the positive future of artificial intelligence, provides a realistic image of opportunities and threats ahead.

Four in some cases may seem good. This possibility is far better than the chances of winning in most games. However, it is apparently low that Dario Amoudi, CEO of Anthropic, appears to be indifferent after estimating the possibility of a social disaster caused by artificial intelligence. At the Axios AI + DC Summit meeting, Amoudi responded with calm when asked about believing in the “possibility of destruction” caused by artificial intelligence:

I think it’s 2 % likely to be really bad.

Amudi means “really, really bad” merely minor mistakes such as automatic modification of the word “duck” in an inappropriate word; Rather, it refers to scenarios that can threaten social systems, including existential risks, severe abuses of artificial intelligence, and unnecessary consequences that may be catastrophic.

In an industry that is often drowned in idealistic promises or reduced to sci -fi fear, Amoudi’s attitude towards the possibility of apocalypse and the reasons for its continued activity in this area is distinct.

Amudi is not the only one who feels worried, but his place is special. As a company CEO that has developed the Claude model, he is not just a passive observer. He is shaping the path of this technology in real time. His team builds the same systems that he is assessing their capacities and risks.

If someone tells you that there is a 5 % chance of explosion each time the car is turned on, you probably prefer to walk. But Amoudi apparently prefers to be mechanical and check the car before it is riding.

This is not the only Amudi warning of artificial intelligence. He had earlier warned that artificial intelligence could eliminate half of the elementary jobs in the office and had warned of exporting advanced chips from the United States to China. This makes Amuddi’s intellectual framework useful: he accepts the danger, quantifies uncertainty, but still places human action.

On the other hand, “5 % of the possibility of going well to the situation” is not just unnecessary optimism. This view reflects the belief that artificial intelligence can have enormous benefits for everyone. This technology can lead to improved medical improvement, more efficient production, and even formulating strategies to deal with existential crises such as climate change (although one of the key elements in solving this problem will be the energy needed to implement artificial intelligence models).

But that 5 % of the risk requires that these benefits be carefully constructed, along with appropriate safety measures and regulations. Because if the future is 5 % brilliant and 2 % devastating, the question is: What should we do to weight the future to the right part?