Claim and evidence Close ×
Pinker's Edge response of 2015 argues that roboticists will build in safeguards against harm as they proceed, with the common sense that went into the design of other machines, and that slow progress leaves time for feedback from incremental implementations. 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 expectation, not evidence that safeguards will work. The response's argument that an AI would have no reason to disable the safeguards is recorded on R10a.
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 “Also, it's bizarre to think that roboticists will not build in safeguards against harm as they proceed.” Location in source Response, para. 6
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 (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. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 83) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. 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 “there will be plenty of time for feedback from incremental implementations, with humans wielding the screwdriver at every stage.” Location in source Response, para. 6
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 (19 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 83) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. 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-r10b-pinker-2015-thinking-does-not-imply-subjugating