Claim and evidence Close ×
Pinker's Edge response of 2015 argues that an artificially intelligent system would have no reason to want to disable safeguards against harm, because goals are extraneous to intelligence and dominance-seeking is a product of natural selection in one primate species, not a feature of intelligent systems. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2015 · publication Records dated 2015 → Role Articulation Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope and limits A statement of the author's argument, not evidence about future systems. The response repeats much of the wording of Pinker's Edge response of 2014.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Thinking Does Not Imply Subjugating ↗ Edge.org, 2015 Annual Question "What do you think about machines that think?" · 2015
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 “Would an artificially intelligent system deliberately disable these safeguards? Why would it want to?” Location in source Response, para. 7
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Steven Pinker Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 a3708aa2e21f7fab98ee58ec0dc65d0ba1188e6ea8673831093a2a3967f64c72). current Edge.org response page retrieved 2026-10-29; the response is printed in Brockman (ed.), What to Think About Machines That Think (2015), pp. 5-8, 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 Steven Pinker, “Thinking Does Not Imply Subjugating”, 2015. 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 (14 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. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 44) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Thinking Does Not Imply Subjugating ↗ Edge.org, 2015 Annual Question "What do you think about machines that think?" · 2015
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 “Being smart is not the same as wanting something.” Location in source Response, para. 7
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Steven Pinker Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 a3708aa2e21f7fab98ee58ec0dc65d0ba1188e6ea8673831093a2a3967f64c72). current Edge.org response page retrieved 2026-10-29; the response is printed in Brockman (ed.), What to Think About Machines That Think (2015), pp. 5-8, 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 Steven Pinker, “Thinking Does Not Imply Subjugating”, 2015. 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 (9 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. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 44) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. 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-r10a-pinker-2015-thinking-does-not-imply-subjugating