Reasoning through arguments against taking AI safety seriously
A blog post by Yoshua Bengio, Author's blog, dated 9 July 2024. Date in the post address and its datePublished metadata.
- Issued by
- No issuing record yet. A missing record is a gap in coverage.
- Authors credited
- No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Yoshua Bengio.
- Dates
- No date claim recorded yet. The source record gives the publication date as 2024-07-09.
- Exact source
- Reasoning through arguments against taking AI safety seriously Author's blog (yoshuabengio.org) · published 2024-07-09 · Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 061559ecadb381ae005f6ca5ec2904200c35fa017592f40da91558ca372e60b2). Current page; its metadata gives datePublished 2024-07-09 and dateModified 2025-12-03, and the page shows no revision note, so later edits cannot be excluded. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. The cross-family check of 2026-10-31 found the sampled passages on evidence and on open-sourcing in the capture of 9 July 2024, at the post's earlier address; nearby wording differs, so the whole page is not identical.Archived copy, captured 2024-07-09: Reasoning through arguments against taking AI safety seriously. Captured on the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2024-07-09. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-29.
Appears in
- Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →6 records on this document
Versions
No other versions of this document are recorded. The evidence applies to the source version listed above. Other versions, such as a preprint, working paper or journal publication, are not identified or substituted.
Documentary relations
Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.
Articulates · 1
Propositions whose criterion a passage of this document meets. The record says what the text states, in its register; it is not evidence that the proposition is true.
- Instrumental convergenceBengio's post of 9 July 2024 states that, to achieve apparently innocuous main goals, it is useful for an AI also to achieve potentially dangerous subgoals such as self-preservation or more control and power over its environment.2024-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Instrumental convergence: propositions page →
Contests · 5
Propositions a passage of this document disputes, or a premise they depend on.
- Intelligence brings benevolence or no drive to dominateBengio's post of 9 July 2024 answers the view that AGI and superintelligent AI will be kind to humans, arguing that AI safety research points the other way and that an AI with a self-preservation goal would resist being turned off and might control or remove humans to that end.2024-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Intelligence brings benevolence or no drive to dominate: propositions page →
- Risk claims are speculative or unfalsifiableBengio's blog post of 9 July 2024 argues that, given the stakes and the basic case for danger, very strong evidence should be required before concluding there is nothing to worry about, and that the arguments he has heard fall short of that bar.2024-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Risk claims are speculative or unfalsifiable: propositions page →
- Capabilities will plateauBengio's post of July 2024 answers the argument that AGI is possible but only in many decades, holding that it cannot be ruled out that AGI is reached by adding some trick to current methods, that capability trend lines continue to point towards AGI, and that regulation takes years to put in place.2024-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Capabilities will plateau: propositions page →
- Open models reduce riskBengio's post of 9 July 2024 states that open-sourcing may currently be more beneficial than detrimental to safety, but argues that as capabilities advance the decision should not rest with companies, and that the argument that good AIs would outnumber and defeat bad AIs has many flaws, including the advantage of attackers using bioweapons.2024-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Open models reduce risk: propositions page →
- Economic incentives will produce safetyBengio's post of 9 July 2024 answers the argument that corporations would prefer to build safe AI by stating that the problem arises when safety and profit maximisation are not aligned, citing fossil-fuel and drug companies, and that global risks are an externality for developers.2024-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Economic incentives will produce safety: propositions page →
Not recorded for this document: cites · cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.