Yesterday 04:26 PM
https://thebulletin.org/2026/09/how-the-...st-heading
EXCERPTS: Behind the escalating warnings about superintelligence is a more fundamental issue, critics argue: There is no established path showing that today’s AI systems will surpass the smartest humans, much less a scientific basis for calculating the likelihood that such systems will destroy humanity. Yet the doomer narrative has increasingly overshadowed AI’s more immediate and concrete risks, while boosting the very companies whose products are being portrayed as extraordinarily powerful and potentially uncontrollable.
“I think Anthropic and OpenAI benefit a lot from claims that their system—their products, not science products—are so powerful that they might end humanity,” says David Widder, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “That’s, in some ways, capitalizing on fear to sell things, or at least to garner investment, garner interest in how powerful their systems are.”
[...] What we have to keep in mind is that all this doomerism isn’t based on any scientific work,” says Milanov. “It really is science fiction. None of the claims are scientifically verifiable or falsifiable.”
Those involved in AI who claim a specific risk of human extinction should be pressed on the evidence, says Emily M. Bender, a professor and director of the Computational Linguistics Laboratory at the University of Washington. “‘How did you calculate that? Where did it come from? What is the data that went into your calculation? And what are the formulas? You’re giving me a number, so there’s got to be something behind it.’”
The numbers being thrown around now lack any of that, according to Bender. “This is really a parlor game; it’s not science,” she says... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: Behind the escalating warnings about superintelligence is a more fundamental issue, critics argue: There is no established path showing that today’s AI systems will surpass the smartest humans, much less a scientific basis for calculating the likelihood that such systems will destroy humanity. Yet the doomer narrative has increasingly overshadowed AI’s more immediate and concrete risks, while boosting the very companies whose products are being portrayed as extraordinarily powerful and potentially uncontrollable.
“I think Anthropic and OpenAI benefit a lot from claims that their system—their products, not science products—are so powerful that they might end humanity,” says David Widder, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “That’s, in some ways, capitalizing on fear to sell things, or at least to garner investment, garner interest in how powerful their systems are.”
[...] What we have to keep in mind is that all this doomerism isn’t based on any scientific work,” says Milanov. “It really is science fiction. None of the claims are scientifically verifiable or falsifiable.”
Those involved in AI who claim a specific risk of human extinction should be pressed on the evidence, says Emily M. Bender, a professor and director of the Computational Linguistics Laboratory at the University of Washington. “‘How did you calculate that? Where did it come from? What is the data that went into your calculation? And what are the formulas? You’re giving me a number, so there’s got to be something behind it.’”
The numbers being thrown around now lack any of that, according to Bender. “This is really a parlor game; it’s not science,” she says... (MORE - missing details)