Claim · 2023-06-07 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Ng's letter of 7 June 2023 answers the CAIS statement, which it quotes.

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

Existential Risk? I Don't Get It! → cites → Statement on AI Risk

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

Existential Risk? I Don't Get It!cites ↓Statement on AI Risk

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2023-06-07 · publication Records dated 2023 →

Scope and limitsA reply is not agreement; the record says only that the text answers the other.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Existential Risk? I Don't Get It!

The Batch, DeepLearning.AI (deeplearning.ai) · 2023-06-07

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“Last week, safe.org asserted that “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority”

Location in source Paragraph 1

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Andrew Ng
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 78aa4053ee0d0cef37204af39681c085dbbc2075b026c81a73adeedf2ac29ce9). Current web copy of the letter in The Batch, dated Jun 07, 2023 on the page. 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: Andrew Ng, “Existential Risk? I Don't Get It!”, 2023-06-07.
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. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.

Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-reply-ng-2023-existential-risk-dont-get-it-to-cais-2023-statement