17 ms·

Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.

by olalonde 4d ago

ex-aws-dude 4d ago
You can already look back at similar concerns for early GPT
- olalonde 4d ago
  Yep: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-generating-algorithm-ai-dangerous.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera...
- metalcrow 4d ago
  Given what's happened since then with propaganda and wide spread scams, I think the original concerns about that have proven quite accurate
macleginn 4d ago
"Moral panic" were the exact thoughts that came to my mind when I read this yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-andy-burnham-block-artificial-superintelligence-asi https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-...
vlyan 4d ago
alas, unlike the moral panics of old this one has the capital behind it.
deleted 4d ago
[deleted]
matsemann 4d ago
Well, that's almost a tautology. People claim Y2K or ozone was a panic and that nothing happened. But nothing happened exactly because the force behind the panic also fixed the issues.
- casey2 3d ago
  That's some way to frame it, not that these companies are causing a problem, but that there is some nebulous "they" that will use the models for 'evil' only if the 'good' companies put in the work. But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning. People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.
- xboxnolifes 4d ago
  What about the panic around dungeons and dragons and violent video games? Did nothing happen because the panic fixed the issue?
nromiun 4d ago
I don't know how the general public can't see that AI companies are fueling this moral panic to attract more and more VC money to make their companies even more ridiculously valued. Every one of their public announcement is designed to create FOMO for investors.
phendrenad2 4d ago
Prediction: Much like Y2K people will think we were all incredibly backwards and uneducated because we thought a bunch of potato computers were going to break the world.
- andyhedges 4d ago
  With Y2K we fixed the issue, if a bunch of work hadn't had gone into that then there would have been wide scale impact. Critical systems were fixed hence no disaster, it wasn't people fussing about nothing.
  - mr_toad 4d ago
    We also spent a lot of money fixing non-critical systems that would have had next to zero impact if they’d failed. A middle manager not getting their sales report on time is not critical. But at least with Y2K some effort was made in identifying actual problems. We didn’t just stop using computers because we were too scared of them. This latest round of AI panic is horribly vague and the problems are very poorly articulated.
Oarch 4d ago
GPT-2 was called "too dangerous to release".
- aroman 4d ago
  And again the boy will cry out “the wolf is here!” But this time the wolf really will be here, and no one will believe him.
- ianm218 3d ago
  Is there a sense where they were right because GPT-2 directly led to the current situation where you can atleast objectively say that reasonable people are pretty worried about existential risks of AI.
  - cute_boi 3d ago
    Well you can't attribute it like this. If you go like this, Are you going to blame google and ban research on LLM?
  - righthand 3d ago
    No because that reason wasn’t why they said it.
ActionHank 3d ago
And we will see vibe coding the same way we see lead paint or asbestos.

Prediction: in a few years, we will laugh at this hysteria and call it a moral panic.

ex-aws-dude 4d ago

You can already look back at similar concerns for early GPT

olalonde 4d ago
Yep: https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-generating-algorithm-ai-dangerous.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera...
metalcrow 4d ago
Given what's happened since then with propaganda and wide spread scams, I think the original concerns about that have proven quite accurate

macleginn 4d ago

"Moral panic" were the exact thoughts that came to my mind when I read this yesterday: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-andy-burnham-block-artificial-superintelligence-asi https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/11/mps-urge-...

vlyan 4d ago

alas, unlike the moral panics of old this one has the capital behind it.

deleted 4d ago

[deleted]

matsemann 4d ago

Well, that's almost a tautology. People claim Y2K or ozone was a panic and that nothing happened. But nothing happened exactly because the force behind the panic also fixed the issues.

casey2 3d ago
That's some way to frame it, not that these companies are causing a problem, but that there is some nebulous "they" that will use the models for 'evil' only if the 'good' companies put in the work. But in any reasonable definition they are all part of the same system, so it really is just noise, what seems like a tautology to you because you can't step out of the system. In your claim you have to assume that the force behind the panic wasn't the same force that created those issues. Why did this force create those issues, how did they become issues? Because someone randomly decided to optimize for a single goal. Y2K and ozone only became issues when they affected that single goal, functionally that force was amoral or singularly moral. The tautology can be reframed as: An adaptive system responds to threats to it's continued functioning. People will laugh about it since the system wormed it's way into many people's head using various rewards (ideological, social, tangible). What concern me is that the system now gives us the language to describe it at the meta level, which means it's already a level higher. So likely there either doesn't exist human comprehensible language that can actually critique the system or the system has already moved everyone far away from the space that would lead to generation of that vocabulary. Best case scenerio it's just exceedingly confident in it's rewards (typical indoctrination/assimilation) but I think it's reasonable at this point to assume we are in the pessimistic "epistemic tarpit" scenario.
xboxnolifes 4d ago
What about the panic around dungeons and dragons and violent video games? Did nothing happen because the panic fixed the issue?

nromiun 4d ago

I don't know how the general public can't see that AI companies are fueling this moral panic to attract more and more VC money to make their companies even more ridiculously valued. Every one of their public announcement is designed to create FOMO for investors.

phendrenad2 4d ago

Prediction: Much like Y2K people will think we were all incredibly backwards and uneducated because we thought a bunch of potato computers were going to break the world.

andyhedges 4d ago
With Y2K we fixed the issue, if a bunch of work hadn't had gone into that then there would have been wide scale impact. Critical systems were fixed hence no disaster, it wasn't people fussing about nothing.
- mr_toad 4d ago
  We also spent a lot of money fixing non-critical systems that would have had next to zero impact if they’d failed. A middle manager not getting their sales report on time is not critical. But at least with Y2K some effort was made in identifying actual problems. We didn’t just stop using computers because we were too scared of them. This latest round of AI panic is horribly vague and the problems are very poorly articulated.

Oarch 4d ago

GPT-2 was called "too dangerous to release".

aroman 4d ago
And again the boy will cry out “the wolf is here!” But this time the wolf really will be here, and no one will believe him.
ianm218 3d ago
Is there a sense where they were right because GPT-2 directly led to the current situation where you can atleast objectively say that reasonable people are pretty worried about existential risks of AI.
- cute_boi 3d ago
  Well you can't attribute it like this. If you go like this, Are you going to blame google and ban research on LLM?
- righthand 3d ago
  No because that reason wasn’t why they said it.

ActionHank 3d ago

And we will see vibe coding the same way we see lead paint or asbestos.