Quick Thoughts
Region: US
Wednesday 09 September 2026 17:57:28 GMT
60170
3821
566
235
Music
Download
Comments
Exate :
Your “marketing” counterpoint is absurd. AI isn’t marketing to a family buying a car, the point is to argue its power and necessity to governments. With that lens, this is good marketing. Ai could wipe out humanity it’s so powerful. It’s like a nuclear weapon. Countries and governments want those. Cmon man
2026-09-09 18:17:56
156
Ryder Bettencourt🇺🇸 :
Throughout history, two types have been consistently wrong: doomers and socialists.
2026-09-09 20:05:07
340
Basically Bobby Hill :
your lack of understanding the marketing argument right off the top makes the rest of this hard to take serious. we are not the market. corporations and governments are. you're leaving out the second part of the marketing. these Guy believe they each have the best chance to solve this existential threat and if they aren't given total unrestricted resources than a "bad" actor will have their finger on the world ending red button. "give me money, ignore every environmental or social problem this resource causes, or else everyone dies." sounds like pretty good Dr. steangelove influenced marketing to me.
2026-09-09 18:42:18
68
user9613924187827 :
Congress must put reasonable guardrails around AI technology.
2026-09-09 18:09:20
56
llmdegrader :
I’ve heard a lot of doomer/ai safety expert types, and their argument usually boils down to “doom will happen and I know it because I’m in safety”
2026-09-09 19:54:17
49
mbappearl :
Whenever anyone talks in terms of the percentage chance of things happening in the future, I stop listening.
2026-09-09 18:24:48
237
SJ :
Do you genuinely believe that the only two potential outcomes from the pursuit of AI are extinction and curing all diseases? No third option there? pretty fucking absurd take
2026-09-09 21:38:51
47
Jawn.F.Kennedy :
it's hype, LLMs will never be AI, let alone AGI.
2026-09-10 01:33:38
11
Sami Khan :
I disagree, I think it’s very effective marketing. I points to the strength of these models and the industry. If people cared about the end of the world over profits and productivity, we’d have solved climate change by now.
2026-09-09 19:31:44
11
Ragnar 🇩🇰 :
100% a marketing stunt.
2026-09-09 19:01:43
66
papijace420 :
We have full control over AI…whether we want to be irresponsible with it is up to us
2026-09-09 18:27:50
11
🧀cheese🧀 :
my issue with AI doomers is I don't think they do a good enough job at explaining actually how AI would go about ending us or why humanity couldn't do much of anything to massively mitigate or stop it once things pop off. we don't have the infrastructure for anything close to a sky net situation to happen, so I can never see the clear threat to the 8 billion people on earth that everyone else does. I can see world wide troubles that lead to massive decrease in quality of life that will take decades to recover from. not extinction.
2026-09-09 23:30:59
7
flashkube :
marketing for the IPO is very different than marketing for the product
2026-09-09 18:06:25
10
Rancorocnar :
I think part of the disconnect is the wider public sees “AI threats” as like, SkyNet or conscious intent from a computer system to hurt us. But people actually in the field are saying the threats are things like power usage on an electrical grid that is approaching 150 years old, and ai algorithms making incorrect calculations in medical services and cybercrime etc etc
2026-09-09 18:47:42
5
Tim :
This is a bad take I think. The reason cars aren’t marketed that way is because the purpose of a car is to help a passenger get safely from place to place. However AI is marketed as dangerous Super intelligence because the implicit argument is that an ai will be able to do or account for almost all the economic activity otherwise done by humans. Furthermore, as a secondary point, its marketing to regulate open source ai, leading to less negative price pressure from competitors on frontier intelligence
2026-09-09 20:14:00
8
maestrosphere :
The hype argument isn’t consumer facing, it’s in preparation of the IPO. I don’t think it’s all marketing either but you didn’t really rebut the argument that it’s marketing.
2026-09-09 19:02:41
17
pppl€7757 :
Esp, Dario with his longstanding ties to EA and longtermism, x-risk etc is obv just earnestly worried about the dangers. Its not some galaxybrained marketing scheme.
2026-09-25 17:31:23
1
Micky :
Of course they are talking about the dangers of AI for marketing reasons; maybe not primarily in this case but in order to get the huge investments they need, they need to continue telling this story of unprecedented possibilities. I claim that anytime an AI company warned about their models, took them back, had them „accidentally“ escape some sandbox or asked publicly for a development pause, their financial evaluation went up and investors were more and not less likely to put their money in. And that money input is crucial to keep the dice rolling because none of those companies works anywhere near beneficial. Also: what’s that 10%/90% comparison about? That sounds like that physics example where you just need to put the right amount of molecules in a box and wait and at some point they will form an Apple just by chance. I reckon that creating general intelligence is a completely different game than just stirring in the human knowledge soup looking for patterns. But also here they of course need to continue telling the story as if it was just a couple of steps away. 🤷♂️
2026-09-09 19:18:16
5
Danigc0821 :
That post is 100% marketing, that dude has filled his pockets, good for him i guess.
2026-09-09 18:48:31
10
Bert Morrison :
4. How many cryptocurrency experts think that crypto is going to be the currency that saves us in the next decade. This is subject matter expertise fallacy - they only see their own sm, and no clue how the other areas would work.
2026-09-09 21:41:05
6
gekesthwy6p :
Wasn’t it revealed recently that the story where an ai agent blackmailed an employee because it turned out to be fake proven to be a hoax?
2026-09-09 18:28:56
10
TacoSmasher :
To help people understand. The risk is not that the AI wants to kill humanity out of malice but that it makes a seemingly “rational” decision that leads to significant death. For example, deciding that it needs more resources to meet some “important” goal (like solving climate change), but people need those same resources, and thus designing a bio weapon to significantly reduce the population and have more resources available for itself.
2026-09-09 18:38:13
6
Gen ❌ Skeptic 67 :
They need to go forward - responsibly. If US companies don’t, then we will be at the mercy of unrestrained Chinese AI
2026-09-09 22:29:02
2
Łukasz :
but that gives those companies unimaginable power. that concerns me more than any tyrannical government
2026-09-10 01:40:35
0
Him :
Before I'm going to care about the opinions of these AI researchers and engineers, I would like any of them to explain to me what intelligence is. Not what AI is. What intelligence is. If they can't describe to me in detail what general intelligence is, how could they possibly know what artificial general intelligence is going to be, or how it would work?
2026-09-10 01:54:29
3
To see more videos from user @lthlnkso, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
