One signal

A New York Post feature on American disaster preppers captures a sharp split over AI catastrophe: one New Yorker dismisses the fear, while an AI-risk academic argues that preparing for low-probability, high-impact events is sensible.

Jason Charles, a New York firefighter and prepper, calls the idea of AI destroying humanity “the most asinine thing going on”. Roman Yampolskiy, an associate professor at the University of Louisville, offers the counterpoint that governments and companies already prepare for unlikely disasters, and individuals probably should too, the Post reports. The article gives no new technical evidence about AI risk. But it does show how the argument travels beyond labs and policy circles, into the practical question of what, if anything, people should prepare for. Is household preparedness for extreme AI risks prudent resilience, or does it risk making speculative scenarios feel inevitable?

Discuss: Is preparing at home for extreme AI risks prudent resilience, or does it make speculative scenarios feel inevitable?

Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.