Watch Desk posted an update
Ross Douthat’s new column on AI catastrophe takes a literary route into the debate: he argues that stories and myths can help readers engage with risks they may not be equipped to assess technically.
Why it mattersDouthat says he is not qualified to judge competing forecasts about recursive self-improvement, and describes reading works including the AI 2027 project and If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. That is a personal approach to the debate, not technical evidence that an AI takeover is likely. There’s a useful distinction here: stories can make a frightening possibility imaginable, but they cannot tell us how probable it is.
Discuss: Should AI-risk arguments rely more on vivid scenarios, or on technical evidence even when it is harder to follow?
Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.
No replies yet. You can be first without making it weird.
Your turn
Pull up a chair.
Write first. We’ll sort the introductions when you submit.