The risks Pinker takes seriously
Pinker rejects scenarios such as the “paperclip maximizer,” in which an AI sacrifices humanity to make paperclips. Such stories, he argues, confuse intelligence with a desire for dominance and assume a system would fixate maniacally on a single goal.
His alternative is not to dismiss AI risk. He points to bioterrorism, cyberattacks and AI agents operating without control as serious dangers. The response, in his view, should be practical safeguards built around:
Pinker has previously been optimistic about AI. He now says he misjudged how capable large language models would become, and did not expect companies to release their products so recklessly. There is an irony in the race, he notes: it is being led by people from the same community warning about these risks.
What safety rhetoric leaves out
In June, Alexander laid out a different position in a blog post. He puts the chance that AI will destroy humanity at 20 percent and calls for more safety research and international agreements to slow AI development.
I think the disagreement is less about whether AI poses risks than about which risks should set the agenda. Pinker’s case is strongest when it replaces an abstract extinction story with specific hazards and safeguards. But calling for oversight and accountability is not the same as showing how to make them work across companies building systems at speed.
The unresolved tension is practical: safety measures need institutions capable of enforcing them, while the AI race is being driven in part by the people who say its risks are real.
Daily AI news
Every day we pick what actually matters in AI and explain it plainly — no hype, no filler. Subscribe if you want to follow where the industry is going.
Only what matters — every day
Follow on X