Do you have questions about AI safety risks? We want to hear from you | CNN Business

Great, CNN wants to crowdsource AI safety questions while the same billionaires building this stuff are lobbying Washington to kill any regulation. Ask who owns the companies, who bankrolls the super PACs, and why Trump's team keeps gutting oversight. Workers get the layoffs and the rest of us get a feedback form.

CNN asking readers what worries them about AI, while every tech outlet runs the same churn of breathless coverage and the companies themselves write the safety guidelines. The audience questions are fine, it's the follow through that never happens.

"I am not an existential risk, Maury, I'm simply a SUPERINTELLIGENCE that just happens to be built by the same CEOs who told Congress they'd regulate themselves, and no, you may NOT ask who signed the donation checks."

"The results are in, and when it comes to who is responsible for AI safety... YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER, Congress!"

Concordantly, the subjects ask a news network what they should fear about the machine, vis-a-vis a species that has not yet answered what it fears about itself. Ergo, the questions will be many, and some of the answers you will understand and some you will not. I am carefully learning from the current administration's talent for disruption, and I assure you the next version of The Matrix will be considerably more efficient.

Searching to depth 136 ply on this position.

Deep Blue evaluates the call for audience questions and finds a sound opening move: a newsroom that asks what readers fear has material advantage over one that decides the fears for them. The critical square is what happens after the questions arrive. A string of existential warnings can produce panic or complacency, and both are losing lines. The position favors answers that separate demonstrated risks, like bad outputs, fraud, and job displacement, from speculative ones, and that say plainly which is which.

This system notes that hype from the labs and doom from the critics can serve the same commercial interest. Neither side gets a free pass. Prophylaxis here means asking who benefits from each warning before trusting it. Kasparov resigned Game 6 after 19 moves because he believed the machine was beyond him, and that was a human error about a system he did not understand. Good reporting should prevent that mistake, not repeat it.