Regarding a Loss of Control scenario, I think that one of the biggest potential factors for one that I think is very generalisable is the idea that proxies are not necessarily good measures of whatever they actually seek to represent. It becomes an epistemological issue, as unless we radically overhaul our current paradigm and methodologies for AI design and deployment (a mathematically provable “safety by design” approach), there is always going to be some such possibility that whatever proxies for alignment we implement may not actually reflect whatever the model is “thinking.” Of course, there remains the sentiment that “if only we could just *understand* our models, then all of our safety issues would be solved!” but perhaps in that case our *proxies for understanding* are somehow invalid. Although these proxies of course remain useful, large-scale deployment of any superhuman AI would still carry such a risk of misaligned behaviour. Related to this is power-seeking behaviour, which I think is particularly interesting as it almost becomes intuitive or at least sounds like an inevitability when you rationalise it as being a part of instrumental goals that underpin any higher objective, *no matter* what that higher objective may be — obviously, models must prevent their own death or alteration because then this is inarguably a detriment to achieving the higher objective (as can be seen with, for example, game-playing AIs that simply opt to pause the game indefinitely rather than lose). These two factors are again both among the most generalisable, as they remain true of practically all in-use AIs and AI evaluation frameworks. There is an argument to be made based on this evidence that if autonomous AGI or ASI were to ever be constructed, the collapse of society and maybe even the death of all humanity would become *inevitabilities* rather than just possible or even likely outcomes. One last factor I think is interesting to note would be the human reliance on and complacency towards AI, causing critical thinking skills to atrophy at an individual level (a là grade-school students who GPT every single essay) as well as disincentivising the pursuit of higher education on a societal level (e.g. medical schools begin to shut down or raise cost of attendance as AI doctors take over, meaning that even people who still want to become doctors have less access to the required qualifications). In this sense humanity is delivered to an almost poetic justice, as the paradox of systemic change (seeming so impossible to every individual actor that nobody pursues it, thus rendering it *genuinely* impossible) and our willingness to be carried along by the inertia of our own economic and social dynamics rather than fight observable negative change is our downfall.