5 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2025
    1. I see no strong reason to believe AI will preferentially or structurally advance democracy and peace, in the same way that I think it will structurally advance human health and alleviate poverty. Human conflict is adversarial and AI can in principle help both the “good guys” and the “bad guys”.

      I agree because availability and accessibility to such powerful technology enable both good guys and bad guys. We can see this being the case already in the context of cybersecurity, where both businesses and cybercriminals are using AI for their own purpose.

    2. AI should help the developing world catch up to the developed world, even as it revolutionizes the latter.

      I think it's important to make sure technological goals are for humanity as a whole. One concern I had with the advancement in AI is that most of the technology could be concentrated in already powerful nations. This could lead to people from underdeveloped nations not having access to such technology or developed nations gatekeeping technology.

    3. Sometimes raw data is lacking and in its absence more intelligence does not help.

      Contrary to the web, it is challenging to collect relevant data in the real world at scale due to data scarcity, limitations in the available data, and the high cost of data collection. There are also ethical and privacy barriers that significantly limit the ability to collect data.

    4. there are real physical and practical limits, for example around building hardware or conducting biological experiments. Even a new country of geniuses would hit up against these limits. Intelligence may be very powerful, but it isn’t magic fairy dust.

      He acknowledges potential limitations to the "power AI" that can't be solved with just intelligence alone. Non-intelligence factors, such as infrastructure, are what enable intelligence to progress.

    5. excessively “sci-fi” tone (featuring e.g. uploaded minds, space exploration, or general cyberpunk vibes). I think this causes people to take the claims less seriously, and to imbue them with a sort of unreality.

      I find this kind of overblown speculation by the public dangerous, not because it's impossible, but because it distorts the public's understanding of the matter.