Here is the NSA/Pentagon “perspective” on AGI Safety:   [warning: terrifying]

It' s a video of the Pentagon's then-top-leader for all of US military AI laughing his ass off when presented by a journalist asking how the DoD will mitigate AGI risk.   This was the #1 US military decision maker for battlefield AI.   (he served as head of the JAIC (US DoD Joint AI Center), which at the time was at the head of the DoD AI hierarachy).

The key issue is simply that the people who allocate military funding have never heard of AGI x-risk as a serious thing beyond the movies.    These people own and control the best quantum computers in the world and they think x-risk even as a concept is..  a laughingstock.

Thank you, reader, if you could do anything at all to help convince the military to realize that x-risk is a real, real danger. 

Thank you.

Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 9:31 AM

It would be helpful to hear more details (including sources) about the problem you've found:

  • What has the NSA publicly announced in its position on AGI? 
  • What has the external academic community or relevant nonprofits assessed their likely plans to be? 
  • Which decision-makers are involved in determining the NSA's policies on AGI development and/or safety?

Also, please add a more specific call to action describing:

  • The action you want to be taken
  • Which kinds of people are best suited to do this 

Wonderful questions Madhav, thank you.  The primary issue is simply lack of knowledge and wisdom -  the people who allocate military funding have never heard of AGI x-risk as a serious thing beyond the movies.  The person whose video I linked laughing was the head of AI R&D for the entire Pentagon.

I will endeavor to answer all of your questions whenever I wrote the next post on this topic.  Thank you very much for the kind advice & interest.

This sounds quite shocking - the absence of an answer and the laughter in the video, as well as the -23 votes here and the lack of a big discussion. 

On the conspiracy theory front, it may be that the guy doesn't want to create panic. Or that the threat is not there, despite what the main players/experts believe (the Musks and Zuckerbergs of the world). 

I think we should take seriously the first possibility, that the key political player thinks the threat is real (and thus agrees with the players/experts) and knows his stuff, it's just that he doesn't want to reveal much to the public. What do you think?