In that interview I also said > I still think that a lot of the risk, maybe probably the majority of the takeover risk, comes from AIs smarter than the ones I’ve been talking about here. I have now shifted to thinking that maybe twice as much risk comes from these later AIs as from earlier AIs. This is like a 1-2x shift from my previous position about the relative importance of these types of risk, which isn't that big. So mostly I think my initial statement was not representative of what I actually thought. For reference, the fuller version of the quote is > Like, five years ago I thought of misalignment risk from AIs that were capable of obsoleting AGI researchers as a really hard problem that you’d need some really galaxy-brained fundamental insights in order to resolve. Whereas now, to me the situation feels a lot more like, man, we just really know a list of 40 things where, if you did the 40 things — none of which seem that hard — you’d probably be able to not have very much of your problem. And the full interview is here