Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2206.13353 v2 pith:IGJUOK5H submitted 2022-06-16 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG
keywords willexistentialargumentpowerfulsystemsagenticagentsbuild
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This report examines what I see as the core argument for concern about existential risk from misaligned artificial intelligence. I proceed in two stages. First, I lay out a backdrop picture that informs such concern. On this picture, intelligent agency is an extremely powerful force, and creating agents much more intelligent than us is playing with fire -- especially given that if their objectives are problematic, such agents would plausibly have instrumental incentives to seek power over humans. Second, I formulate and evaluate a more specific six-premise argument that creating agents of this kind will lead to existential catastrophe by 2070. On this argument, by 2070: (1) it will become possible and financially feasible to build relevantly powerful and agentic AI systems; (2) there will be strong incentives to do so; (3) it will be much harder to build aligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems than to build misaligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems that are still superficially attractive to deploy; (4) some such misaligned systems will seek power over humans in high-impact ways; (5) this problem will scale to the full disempowerment of humanity; and (6) such disempowerment will constitute an existential catastrophe. I assign rough subjective credences to the premises in this argument, and I end up with an overall estimate of ~5% that an existential catastrophe of this kind will occur by 2070. (May 2022 update: since making this report public in April 2021, my estimate here has gone up, and is now at >10%.)

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 36 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Risky Business: Measuring The Faithfulness-Safety Tension

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Faithful reasoning and safety pull in opposite directions in current reasoning models, and the two behaviors are controlled by anti-correlated internal vectors that can be steered independently.

  2. Intelligent Cause Prioritisation? An Analysis of AI Policy Priorities and Governance in Africa

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    African governments' AI policies prioritize development and opportunity over AI safety, with structural risks almost entirely absent from public discourse.

  3. NEST: Nascent Encoded Steganographic Thoughts

    cs.AI 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Frontier LLMs can embed short digit sequences in sentence acrostics (Claude Opus 4.5: 92% per-digit at D=4) but fail to jointly solve hidden reasoning tasks and encode the solution.

  4. Out of Control -- Why Alignment Needs Formal Control Theory (and an Alignment Control Stack)

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A position paper proposing that AI alignment adopt formal optimal control and a ten-layer Alignment Control Stack for organizing and interoperating control interventions.

Pith tools