Claim · 2019-10-04 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Zador's comments in the 2019 thread argue that for a robot that is not omnipotent, killing humans carries the risk of retaliation, so that it is unlikely to be an optimal strategy in most scenarios.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Anthony Zador's comments in the Facebook thread on instrumental convergence (2019) → contests → Instrumental convergence

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Anthony Zador's comments in the Facebook thread on instrumental convergence (2019)contests ↓Instrumental convergence

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2019-10-04 · publication Records dated 2019 →
Wording attested: 2019-10-04. The wording is known from the LessWrong copy, whose compiler states that he improved formatting and fixed typos; the Facebook original was not compared.
Role: Contesting
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. Gives a reason against the premise that eliminating a threat is the optimal subgoal: for a non-omnipotent agent it invites retaliation, and other strategies serve survival.

Scope and limitsContests the claim that harming humans would be an instrumentally optimal strategy, not that instrumental goals exist. Each comment is the participant's own words in a relayed copy; the record states what the comment says in this thread, not the author's view at another date.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Debate on Instrumental Convergence between LeCun, Russell, Bengio, Zador, and More

LessWrong (post by Ben Pace reproducing a public Facebook thread) · 2019-10-04

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“killing all humans is not only not likely to be an optimal strategy under most scenarios, the set of scenarios under which it is optimal is probably close to a set of measure 0.”

Location in source Comment Thread #2, Tony Zador

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Ben Pace
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 59e3dd77f4825a5a60ce7f1f10dd8c2eebaac7786aee13c861e21d853d251495). Post contents version 1.0.0 (unedited since posting on 2019-10-04), retrieved through the LessWrong GraphQL API (post WxW6Gc6f2z3mzmqKs) because the page refused direct retrieval (HTTP 403). The compiler states that he improved formatting and fixed typos; the Facebook original was not read. 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: Ben Pace, “Debate on Instrumental Convergence between LeCun, Russell, Bengio, Zador, and More”, 2019-10-04.
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 (34 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 disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.

Date. Dated by the LessWrong copy of 4 October 2019. The Facebook thread follows the Scientific American piece of 26 September 2019; the copy gives no date for individual comments.

Record ID rd-r02-zador-2019-instrumental-convergence-thread