<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jimrandomh</author><text>For the most part these aren&amp;#x27;t aimed at people making bad AGIs deliberately, but rather, at well-intentioned developers launching AGIs with serious bugs. Those developers will want to include safety mechanisms, and will, hopefully, be the first to make AGIs with major capabilities.&lt;p&gt;We should also be working to secure the channels an AGI might exploit, but most of those are already tied to an economic incentive to invest in security, and are already getting large investments compared to the relatively tiny field of AI safety.</text><parent_chain><item><author>lacker</author><text>This sort of &amp;quot;internal&amp;quot; approach to AI safety, where you attempt to build fundamental limits into the AI itself, seems like it is easily thwarted by someone who intentionally builds an AI without these safety mechanisms. As long as AI is an open technology there will always be some criminals who just want to see the world burn.&lt;p&gt;IMO, a better approach to AI safety research is to focus on securing the first channels that a malicious AI would be likely to exploit. Like spam, and security. Can you make communications spam-resistant? Can you make an unhackable internet service?&lt;p&gt;Those seem hard, but more plausible than the &amp;quot;Watch out for paperclip optimizers&amp;quot; approach to AI safety. It just feels like inventing a way to build a nuclear weapon that can&amp;#x27;t actually explode, and then hoping the problem of nuclear war is solved.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Concrete AI Safety Problems</title><url>https://openai.com/blog/concrete-ai-safety-problems/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ikeboy</author><text>&amp;gt;All else being equal, not many people would prefer to destroy the world. Even faceless
corporations, meddling governments, reckless scientists, and other agents of doom require
a world in which to achieve their goals of profit, order, tenure, or other villainies.
If our extinction proceeds slowly enough to allow a moment of horrified realization, the
doers of the deed will likely be quite taken aback on realizing that they have actually
destroyed the world. Therefore I suggest that if the Earth is destroyed, it will probably
be by mistake.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;intelligence.org&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;CognitiveBiases.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;intelligence.org&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;CognitiveBiases.pdf&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>lacker</author><text>This sort of &amp;quot;internal&amp;quot; approach to AI safety, where you attempt to build fundamental limits into the AI itself, seems like it is easily thwarted by someone who intentionally builds an AI without these safety mechanisms. As long as AI is an open technology there will always be some criminals who just want to see the world burn.&lt;p&gt;IMO, a better approach to AI safety research is to focus on securing the first channels that a malicious AI would be likely to exploit. Like spam, and security. Can you make communications spam-resistant? Can you make an unhackable internet service?&lt;p&gt;Those seem hard, but more plausible than the &amp;quot;Watch out for paperclip optimizers&amp;quot; approach to AI safety. It just feels like inventing a way to build a nuclear weapon that can&amp;#x27;t actually explode, and then hoping the problem of nuclear war is solved.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Concrete AI Safety Problems</title><url>https://openai.com/blog/concrete-ai-safety-problems/</url></story>