Boeing MCAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System) is blaimed by more than 100 deaths. How much "AI" would a similar system need to include for a similar tragedy to count as "an event precipitated by AI"?
Such scenarios are at best smoke, not fire alarms.
When I observe that there’s no fire alarm for AGI, I’m not saying that there’s no possible equivalent of smoke appearing from under a door.
What I’m saying rather is that the smoke under the door is always going to be arguable; it is not going to be a clear and undeniable and absolute sign of fire; and so there is never going to be a fire alarm producing common knowledge that action is now due and socially acceptable. ...
There is never going to be a time before the end when you can look around nervously, and see that it is now clearly common knowledge that you can talk about AGI being imminent, and take action and exit the building in an orderly fashion, without fear of looking stupid or frightened.
AI systems find ways to completely manipulate some class of humans, e.g. by making them addicted. Arguably, this is already happening on a wider scale to a smaller amount – people becoming “addicted” to algorithmically generated feeds.
Maybe the question could be concretized to the amount of time people spend on their devices on average?
If an AI system or systems goes wrong in the near term and causes harm to humans in a way which is consistent with or supportive of alignment being a big deal, what might it look like?
I'm asking because I'm curious about potential fire-alarm scenarios (including things which just help to make AI risks salient to the wider public), and also looking to operationalise a forecasting question which is currently drafted as
to allow a clear and sensible resolution.