Primeiramente, suponho que você esteja dizendo, literalmente,

Primeiramente, suponho que você esteja dizendo, literalmente, que você acredita que a IA possa nos matar todos até o fim da década. I assume you are saying literally that you believe that AI could kill us all by the end of the decade. It sounds like something that's not real, but I think it is frighteningly real. And it's easiest to understand it if you think about real things that happened two months ago. So two months ago, OpenAI agents, AI agents, hacked into third-party infrastructure entirely at their own accord. And this was like a concentrated hacking spree that they carried out of their own volition. And I think that if you extrapolate into the future the level of capabilities of these AIs, with the same independent volition, they could cause extreme havoc, for example, hacking into critical infrastructure, building extinction-level bio-weapons. There are many ways that AI could actually itself in the world. And when, exactly, did your feelings about this technology change? Was it something related to the rate of progress that you saw? Yeah. So I think it's really important to just look at the rate of progress and say, for example, that in areas like coding or math, a couple of years ago, these AIs were just about helping humans a little. They could give you suggestions. Now, they're close to replacing them. We still need humans at the moment, but quite plausibly, within a year, we'll no longer need humans for doing research in many areas. We mentioned a former colleague of yours, who currently works at Anthropic, basically endorsed the evaluation that AI could potentially kill everyone within a decade. In a follow-up post, he said, to be clear, as we say in our latest Risk Report, I think the risk from present-day models is low. What I am worried about is superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought. That is happening faster than we thought. I suppose that's what you... Recursive self-improvement is what you've just spoken about. Do you agree with him that, the current models, the risk is low, but it's just the speed with which this is now improving? Exactly. I completely agree. It's right now there's no risk of extinction. The current models, the worst they can do, perhaps, is maybe hack into something and potentially cause a lot of damage in infrastructure, but they're not intelligent enough to outsmart us at a level that would lead to our extinction. I think what's just crazy is to look at the rate of progress. And there is a very real possibility that in the immediate future, these years that like next year, the year after, recursive self-improvement will happen and will enter the phase described in Evan's post where he argues that there's a chance we could all die. Like that that is coming soon. I suppose that's what you... Recursive self-improvement is what you've just spoken about. Do you agree with him that, the current models, the risk is low, but it's just the speed with which this is now improving? Exactly. I completely agree. It's right now there's no risk of extinction. The current models, the worst they can do, perhaps, is maybe hack into something and potentially cause a lot of damage in infrastructure, but they're not intelligent enough to outsmart us at a level that would lead to our extinction. I think what's just crazy is to look at the rate of progress. And there is a very real possibility that in the immediate future, these years that like next year, the year after, recursive self-improvement will happen and will enter the phase described in Evan's post where he argues that there's a chance we could all die. Like that that is coming soon.