Evidence receipt / belief
Published · transcript-backedDan Hendrycks: belief
24 Jun 2025 Machine Learning Street Talk Three Red Lines We're About to Cross Toward AGI (Daniel Kokotajlo, Gary Marcus, Dan Hendrycks)
“I think AGI doesn't have a clear definition, so it's difficult for me to say for all definitions of that that would be worth standing in front of.”
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Dan Hendrycks
- Attribution
- Verified speaker
- Claim type
- belief
- Recorded
- 24 Jun 2025
- Publisher
- Machine Learning Street Talk
Transcript context
…Yeah. So I I think we well, first of all, we'll come back to the bulldozers and whether you think we're actually at that point, or not. But I think we can agree probably and and we'll let you chime in too, that there is a technical alignment problem and we should talk about that. And a political, if it's not alignment problem, maybe that's too close pairing of words. But a political issue about if this technology exists, who controls it? That's deeply important. Yeah. And so we should talk about both sides of that sort of Yeah. Political control and technical alignment. Let me get your answer though on on that first question. You know, do you think we need to stand in front of a bulldozer now? And if you don't, you know, what do you think is the positive? Yeah. So I I think there are 2 concepts. There's AGI and there's ASI, the artificial general intelligence and artificial super intelligence. I think AGI doesn't have a clear definition, so it's difficult for me to say for all definitions of that that would be worth standing in front of. Some people would say we have AGI already. Let's just start with what we have now. Yeah. You know, there could be an argument that right now we should just stop the train. Sorry, I've moved from bulldozers to trains. You know, there'd be an argument, I'm not making this argument, but some people have made it. The argument would be we're already so far along this path and if we don't resist it massively right now it's gonna be bad and there isn't a good outcome here, a good enough outcome to offset what seems inevitable. I'm not making that argument but I've heard people make it. And so partly, you know, grounding exercise, where are we on that? So, you know, 1 argument would be, fuck it. We've screwed up. We need to put have every person on the planet get in front of this train or bulldozer and and say, just stop it because there isn't a positive of outcome to warrant it. Another position would be, there's actually a really positive outcome here and if we can guide it in the right way, can get to that positive outcome and here's why I think it's positive. Well, that's the kind of set of issues I wanted you to speak to first.…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.