Claim and evidence Close ×
Russell's article of 8 October 2019 argues, citing Hume, that a general-purpose intelligent system could be given more or less any objective, and that improving a system's competence does not make it reject an objective it has been given. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2019-10-08 · publication Records dated 2019 → Role Articulation Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope and limits A statement of the author's argument, presented in the article as a reply to texts arguing that the risk is negligible; not evidence about any built system.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Many Experts Say We Shouldn’t Worry About Superintelligent AI. They’re Wrong ↗ IEEE Spectrum (spectrum.ieee.org) · 2019-10-08
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “By the same token, it is easy to imagine that a general-purpose intelligent system could be given more or less any objective to pursue—including maximizing the number of paper clips or the number of known digits of pi.” Location in source Section on the idea that intelligence brings the right goals
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Stuart Russell Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 44432d3c30826cf27e47a02b24bf2bb9afea8db05e619f33870d279f69c833f8). current IEEE Spectrum page dated 08 Oct 2019, based on a chapter of Human Compatible (Viking, 2019); printed in the October 2019 issue as "It’s Not Too Soon to Be Wary of AI", which was not compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Stuart Russell, “Many Experts Say We Shouldn’t Worry About Superintelligent AI. They’re Wrong”, 2019-10-08. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (38 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Many Experts Say We Shouldn’t Worry About Superintelligent AI. They’re Wrong ↗ IEEE Spectrum (spectrum.ieee.org) · 2019-10-08
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “For engineers and computer scientists operating within the standard model, the orthogonality thesis is just a given.” Location in source Same section
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Stuart Russell Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 44432d3c30826cf27e47a02b24bf2bb9afea8db05e619f33870d279f69c833f8). current IEEE Spectrum page dated 08 Oct 2019, based on a chapter of Human Compatible (Viking, 2019); printed in the October 2019 issue as "It’s Not Too Soon to Be Wary of AI", which was not compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Stuart Russell, “Many Experts Say We Shouldn’t Worry About Superintelligent AI. They’re Wrong”, 2019-10-08. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (17 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.
Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.
Record ID rd-r01-russell-2019-ieee-spectrum