Claim and evidence Close ×
Pinker's article of 14 February 2018 argues that the drive to dominate belongs to a circuit in the limbic brain of one primate species, not to the nature of intelligence, so that an AI designed rather than evolved could as easily be altruistic and need not turn into a “ruthless conquistador”. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2018-02-14 · publication Records dated 2018 → Role Articulation Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope and limits A statement of the author's argument, not evidence about future systems. The passage also states that goals are independent of intelligence, the independence that R01 asserts. Moved here from the former R01 record after a machine audit of the research pack.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
We’re told to fear robots. But why do we think they’ll turn on us? ↗ Popular Science (popsci.com) · 2018-02-14
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 “An artificially intelligent system that was designed rather than evolved could just as easily think like shmoos” Location in source Section on the first fallacy
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 75b3508ded058bd9baedaf32ef79a899696d4fe6692a2c5a6e55de011d4a83f4). current popsci.com page, datePublished 2018-02-14 in the page metadata; the page states it is adapted from Enlightenment Now (Viking, 2018), which was not compared. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Steven Pinker, “We’re told to fear robots. But why do we think they’ll turn on us?”, 2018-02-14. 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. primary source Supports the claim
We’re told to fear robots. But why do we think they’ll turn on us? ↗ Popular Science (popsci.com) · 2018-02-14
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 “There is no law of complex systems that says intelligent agents must turn into ruthless conquistadors.” Location in source Section on the first fallacy
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 75b3508ded058bd9baedaf32ef79a899696d4fe6692a2c5a6e55de011d4a83f4). current popsci.com page, datePublished 2018-02-14 in the page metadata; the page states it is adapted from Enlightenment Now (Viking, 2018), which was not compared. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Steven Pinker, “We’re told to fear robots. But why do we think they’ll turn on us?”, 2018-02-14. 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 (16 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-r10a-pinker-2018-popsci-fear-robots