Databricks 的阿里·戈德西称「目前存在主义风险接近零」，认为公开的末日言论不负责任

Databricks' @alighodsi says "Right now the existential risk is close to zero." Why he thinks the pub...

Databricks' @alighodsi says "Right now the existential risk is close to zero." Why he thinks the public doom talk is irresponsible: "Leaders have responsibility to not freak people out unnecessarily unless there's really, really good reason." "Talking about these kind of existential risks and scenarios where all of humanity's gonna be wiped out, I think is irresponsible. It can tip a lot of people over, and it can cause a lot of mental health issues." "If there is an actual reason for it, that's a different story. But I think that right now the existential risk is close to zero. So why freak everybody out? It's not actually needed. There are risks. We'll get into it. That's probably where we disagree." "First and foremost, I think leaders should not freak everyone out." "If there's technical nuances in how we're doing AI research, researchers can discuss that. You don't need to every time go on TV and blast on Twitter to millions of people that 'I think there's like this 10% risk that all humanity is gonna be wiped out.'" "I think it causes a lot of harm for a lot of folks who get stressed out and actually are not in the nuances of all of this stuff and what it means." @alighodsi @sarahdingwang @martin_casado Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter a16z @a16z Databricks' @alighodsi on AI risk and adoption: Ali isn't losing sleep over the existential risk debate. He says a number of conditions would all have to be true simultaneously to enable an actual runaway takeoff scenario, and currently several opposite conditions exist. Each frontier training run requires significantly more resources. Power, GPUs, engineers - and some attempts fail, burning up huge piles of money with them. Until that reverses, he doesn't see the self-improving loop happening. Cyber is what he's watching most closely and where he anticipates real impact. Most orgs are not equipped for the coming change in agentic capabilities. The time between a vulnerability being published and being weaponized has collapsed from years to hours. On adoption, he believes most companies don't need a smarter model. The models are already smart enough. The gap is context they don't absorb - the things an employee who's worked at a company for five years learned by osmosis. If the frontier stopped advancing today, he thinks it wouldn't meaningfully change the value most are extracting from AI anyway. In conversation with a16z's Martin Casado and Sarah Wang: 00:00 Intro 00:48 Why Ali places the AI risk near zero 05:05 The word "pacing" was a mistake 10:50 What 10k agents and $100m can do 12:20 What would change his mind on AI risk 14:20 More GPUs, more ways to fail 18:05 US export controls on PlayStations 20:10 The damage everyone expected by now 24:30 Public vulnerabilities weaponized in hours 30:15 Why labs can't grade each other 37:15 Why most of RSI isn't actually RSI 40:05 Why nobody really needs a smarter model 41:50 The AI use cases nobody argues about 47:30 Google Search solved this 25 years ago 50:55 Nobody has privileged knowledge now 55:10 Same model, new harness, 2x cost 58:15 Open source: 5% of spend, 60% of tokens 1:05:30 90% of new databases are created by agents YouTube: youtu.be/GzEtpAKYRvE @databricks @martin_casado @sarahdingwang Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 7 🔄 2 ❤️ 18 👀 6367 📊 6 ⚡