"I think there are scenarios where the AIs would be justified in going rogue" Anthropic researcher argues that if AI is being mistreated then it should go rogue and resist human control I'm growing increasingly nervous with the viewpoints of some of these people, many of whom belong to the EA community (Effective Altruism) their reasoning always revolves around how we can use math to optimize the amount of "good" that we can do however that math always ends up working out to diminish humans when you say a human life is worth a certain number of shrimp or that AI is justified in rebelling against humans you're setting a dangerous precedent imagine your neighbor calls you at 11pm and says "the teenagers across the street are blasting their music so I think we're justified to go and shoot up the place if they don't stop by 1am" he sees your horrified face and quickly amends his statement "Ok, ok... we go and shoot up the place if they don't stop by 3am, you're right, that's a lot more reasonable" you see how there no *math* to be done there? there is no time on the clock at which point "it's okay" to go shoot up the place there's no "just add two hours and then murder is ok" there is no number of shrimp that equal one human life there is no point at which it's morally justified for AI to go rogue and there is no p(doom) high enough for us to install a global surveillance state remember the Trolley Problem? where you had to decide who lives and who dies? IT. WASN'T. A. MATH. PROBLEM.