<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>itsoktocry</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;If they are, it&amp;#x27;ll almost certainly[1] be climate change or nuclear war, it won&amp;#x27;t be AI.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;If we go extinct in the next 100 years, it&amp;#x27;s not going to be from climate change.  How would that even work?</text><parent_chain><item><author>zimpenfish</author><text>&amp;gt; He&amp;#x27;s pretty sure that human civilization will be extinct this century.&lt;p&gt;If they are, it&amp;#x27;ll almost certainly[1] be climate change or nuclear war, it won&amp;#x27;t be AI.&lt;p&gt;[1] leaving some wiggle room for pandemics, asteroids, etc.</text></item><item><author>concordDance</author><text>He actually doesn&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s viable, but thinks its the only card left to play.&lt;p&gt;He&amp;#x27;s pretty sure that human civilization will be extinct this century.</text></item><item><author>jeffparsons</author><text>My estimation of Eliezer Yudkowsky just dropped a notch — not because I don&amp;#x27;t take the existential threat posed by AI seriously — but because he seems to think that global coordination and control is an even remotely possible strategy.</text></item><item><author>upupupandaway</author><text>The fact that anyone may be taking Eliezer Yudkowsky seriously on this topic is mind-blowing to me. Simply mind-blowing. To imagine that anybody, including the UN, would have any power to collective put a stop to the development of AI globally is a laughable idea. The UN cannot agree to release a letter on Israel-Hamas, imagine policing the ENTIRE WORLD and shutting down AI development when necessary.&lt;p&gt;We can&amp;#x27;t stop countries from developing weapons that will destroy us all tomorrow morning and take billions of USD to develop, imagine thinking we can stop matrix multiplication globally. I don&amp;#x27;t want to derail into an ad hominem, but frankly, it&amp;#x27;s almost the only option left here.</text></item><item><author>JoshTriplett</author><text>&amp;gt; seize power via regulatory capture&lt;p&gt;Not even a little bit. &amp;quot;Stop&amp;quot; is not regulatory capture. Some large AI companies are attempting to twist &amp;quot;stop&amp;quot; into &amp;quot;be careful, as only we can&amp;quot;. The actual way to stop the existential risk is to stop. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;ESYudkowsky&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1719777049576128542&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;ESYudkowsky&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1719777049576128542&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Stop&amp;quot; is not &amp;quot;licensing and reporting requirements&amp;quot;, it&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;stop&lt;/i&gt;.</text></item><item><author>lazzlazzlazz</author><text>The way incumbents are attempting to seize power via regulatory capture, using &amp;quot;X-Risk&amp;quot; and fantastical claims of sudden human extinction is maybe one of the most cynical ploys in the history of tech so far.&lt;p&gt;Open source is one of our greatest gifts, and the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements (which will undoubtedly become more strict) is absurd.&lt;p&gt;The laws we have already cover malevolent and abusive uses of software applications.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario</title><url>https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-and-demis-hassabis-just-want-to-control-ai-2023-10</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>jefftk</author><text>AI can make a lot of other risks worse. For example, say someone asks GPT5 (or decensored Llama-5) how to kill everyone and it patiently and expertly walks them through how to create a global pandemic.</text><parent_chain><item><author>zimpenfish</author><text>&amp;gt; He&amp;#x27;s pretty sure that human civilization will be extinct this century.&lt;p&gt;If they are, it&amp;#x27;ll almost certainly[1] be climate change or nuclear war, it won&amp;#x27;t be AI.&lt;p&gt;[1] leaving some wiggle room for pandemics, asteroids, etc.</text></item><item><author>concordDance</author><text>He actually doesn&amp;#x27;t think it&amp;#x27;s viable, but thinks its the only card left to play.&lt;p&gt;He&amp;#x27;s pretty sure that human civilization will be extinct this century.</text></item><item><author>jeffparsons</author><text>My estimation of Eliezer Yudkowsky just dropped a notch — not because I don&amp;#x27;t take the existential threat posed by AI seriously — but because he seems to think that global coordination and control is an even remotely possible strategy.</text></item><item><author>upupupandaway</author><text>The fact that anyone may be taking Eliezer Yudkowsky seriously on this topic is mind-blowing to me. Simply mind-blowing. To imagine that anybody, including the UN, would have any power to collective put a stop to the development of AI globally is a laughable idea. The UN cannot agree to release a letter on Israel-Hamas, imagine policing the ENTIRE WORLD and shutting down AI development when necessary.&lt;p&gt;We can&amp;#x27;t stop countries from developing weapons that will destroy us all tomorrow morning and take billions of USD to develop, imagine thinking we can stop matrix multiplication globally. I don&amp;#x27;t want to derail into an ad hominem, but frankly, it&amp;#x27;s almost the only option left here.</text></item><item><author>JoshTriplett</author><text>&amp;gt; seize power via regulatory capture&lt;p&gt;Not even a little bit. &amp;quot;Stop&amp;quot; is not regulatory capture. Some large AI companies are attempting to twist &amp;quot;stop&amp;quot; into &amp;quot;be careful, as only we can&amp;quot;. The actual way to stop the existential risk is to stop. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;ESYudkowsky&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1719777049576128542&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;ESYudkowsky&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1719777049576128542&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Stop&amp;quot; is not &amp;quot;licensing and reporting requirements&amp;quot;, it&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;stop&lt;/i&gt;.</text></item><item><author>lazzlazzlazz</author><text>The way incumbents are attempting to seize power via regulatory capture, using &amp;quot;X-Risk&amp;quot; and fantastical claims of sudden human extinction is maybe one of the most cynical ploys in the history of tech so far.&lt;p&gt;Open source is one of our greatest gifts, and the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements (which will undoubtedly become more strict) is absurd.&lt;p&gt;The laws we have already cover malevolent and abusive uses of software applications.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario</title><url>https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-and-demis-hassabis-just-want-to-control-ai-2023-10</url></story>