This is an article in the featured articles series from AISafety.info. AISafety.info writes AI safety intro content. We'd appreciate any feedback

The most up-to-date version of this article is on our website, along with 300+ other articles on AI existential safety.

There are many fictional stories that depict unaligned non-human entities in ways that can illustrate some aspects of what AI misalignment might look like.

Many traditional fables about "being careful what you wish for" — such as the stories of King Midas, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, literal genies, and some traditional Jewish Golems — hinge on a character getting what they literally ask for, but failing to anticipate the full consequences or side effects. These stories illustrate how the complexity and fragility of human values make outer misalignment a real danger, and how a genie-like superintelligence that does not care about what we really want could lead to catastrophic consequences.[1]

Some stories (Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Ex Machina) portray AIs that have been tasked with seemingly beneficial or morally neutral aims but are misaligned in important ways from their creators.

Some stories (Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, The Terminator) portray AI that very explicitly attempts to take over the world, whereas others (Ex Machina, Upgrade, 2001: A Space Odyssey) have AI with more restricted or ambiguous aims that still bring it into conflict with its creators or users. When the AI is depicted as trying to take over the world, this takeover is not usually its final goal but comes about as an instrumentally convergent goal.

In Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot series of novels, the characters attempt to constrain the behavior of robots with the Three Laws of Robotics. The stories explore how these laws are insufficient to guarantee a good outcome. For instance, in the story “Liar!”, a robot is forced to violate the First Law (do not harm humans). Either it can hurt a human by telling them the truth, or hurt them by keeping the truth from them, and the First Law doesn’t specify how to think through such situations.

The Terminator movies are often used as a pop-culture reference for AI risk. Many in the field dislike when AI risk is illustrated this way because pop culture views Skynet as malicious rather than simply amoral. The movies also involve android killer robots, which are unlikely to be used.[2] Others have pushed back[3] and argued that there are some relevant aspects of these movies, including:

  • Skynet understands that humans are a threat to its goals and attempts extermination as an instrumental goal.
  • Competitive dynamics make the rise of Skynet hard to avoid, mirroring the AI arms race.
  • Skynet fighting back when humans try to disable it illustrates how not being shut down is an instrumentally convergent goal.

We should avoid generalizing from fictional evidence and take these comparisons as illustrations rather than arguments. These exact scenarios are unlikely, and there are possible misalignment scenarios that could be very dangerous but would not make for interesting media and thus are not covered as much in such stories.

  1. ^

    Some have argued that this kind of misalignment is less likely because LLMs appear to understand human intent, but this is a point of active debate in the field.

  2. ^

    Why on earth would you make a killer robot in human form? It’s so inefficient! A true superintelligence would never clothe itself in the form of the inferior meat-bags.

  3. ^

    People who have pushed back include Matt Yglesias, Skluug, and Hein de Haan.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal