this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
221 points (81.5% liked)

Technology

88162 readers
4363 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
221
AI staff 'genuinely frightened' for humanity's future, ex-Anthropic researcher tells BBC (www.bbc.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
249 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm not an AI techie and I'm not well educated on LLMs/AI in general. The issue I'm having is the dichotomy between how people talk about it. I've heard completely opposite ends of the spectrum. From AI is quickly becoming advanced enough to threaten human society, all the way to its a glorified dictionary/search engine that can't really do much of anything. I know Lemmy has a steep anti-AI slant. But, can someone talk about this in a way I can wrap my head around why the divide seems so big?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  1. No, their opinion would not be the most informed. They are biased in favor of making money. They know they can't deliver on strong AI, but they'd be happy to milk your fears.
[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We're talking about mid-tier employees that left the company.... I mean i guess there incentives could be to pump their shares they undoubtably have... They're all quite wealthy now in context. Maybe he just wanted 5 minutes of fame...or maybe they understand the trajectory of the technology. Maybe they are genuinely concerned and we should at least acknowledge that?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are motives for whistleblowers to lie. Book sales, political careers, other attention. The executives they accused, though, just said they were right

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

of course there's motivation for everything, which one are you assigning this individual and based on what technological disagreement?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

when the boss who is being whistleblowed against admits the whistleblower is right, you can believe both that there are problems. I can't think of any other case in history where this happened. The disgruntled ex-employee smear is a common defensive move instead.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Thats sound logic, i can't disagree with that. I still think having a machine that can automate scripting of malware is pretty dangerous to the digital society we set up. If the grid fails and the financial system collapses, I'm gonna be okay... Are you?

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I'm not talking about execs.