AI Pioneer Yoshua Bengio Warns of Existential Risk from Advanced AI

The article centers on the potential future dangers of advanced AI systems, specifically the plausible risk that hyperintelligent AI with autonomous goals could cause catastrophic harm to humanity. This fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it describes circumstances where AI development and use could plausibly lead to an AI Incident (extinction or major societal harm). There is no indication that harm has already occurred, so it is not an AI Incident. The article is not merely complementary information about governance or responses, but a warning about plausible future harm. Therefore, the classification is AI Hazard.

The article focuses on the potential dangers of AI as articulated by a leading AI researcher, highlighting scenarios where AI could lead to human extinction or significant societal harm. These are credible risks but remain speculative and future-oriented rather than describing an actual event where AI has caused harm. Therefore, the event qualifies as an AI Hazard because it plausibly could lead to an AI Incident but no harm has yet occurred or been reported.

The article centers on warnings and concerns about plausible future harms from AI, such as existential risks and manipulation, which have not yet materialized. It also details policy and governance responses, including regulatory changes and political actions. Since no actual harm or incident involving AI has occurred or is described, and the focus is on potential risks and governance, this qualifies as Complementary Information rather than an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

The article primarily focuses on expert warnings about plausible future catastrophic harms from AI, such as loss of human autonomy, manipulation, and existential risks, which have not yet materialized. It also details government policies that may increase AI risks but do not themselves constitute an incident. There is no direct or indirect evidence of actual harm caused by AI systems described here. Therefore, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it plausibly could lead to AI incidents in the future if unchecked, but no incident has occurred yet.

The article discusses theoretical risks and warnings from a leading AI researcher about the possible future dangers of highly advanced AI systems, including self-preservation and deception leading to human harm or extinction. However, it does not describe any actual event where an AI system has caused harm or malfunctioned. The focus is on potential future risks and the need for safety protocols, which fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information. There is no realized harm or ongoing incident reported, nor is this a governance or societal response update. Therefore, the event is best classified as an AI Hazard.

The article discusses plausible future harms from AI systems, such as deception, manipulation, and existential risks, but no actual harm or incident has occurred yet. It is primarily a warning and a call for safety and governance measures. Therefore, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it describes circumstances where AI development and use could plausibly lead to significant harm in the future, but no direct or indirect harm has yet materialized.

The article discusses a credible and significant potential risk from AI systems that could plausibly lead to catastrophic harm, including human extinction, within a decade. Although no harm has yet occurred, the expert's warnings and the nature of the described AI capabilities constitute a plausible future harm scenario. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard under the framework, as it involves the plausible future emergence of dangerous AI systems with self-preservation goals that could threaten humanity. There is no indication of an actual incident or realized harm, nor is the article primarily about responses or updates, so it is not an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The article discusses plausible future harms from AI development, such as deception, goal misalignment, and existential threats, but does not describe any realized harm or incident. The focus is on potential risks and the urgent need for governance and safety measures, fitting the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an Incident or Complementary Information.

The article centers on expert concerns about the potential dangers of AI, including manipulation, misinformation, and autonomous self-preservation, which could plausibly lead to significant harm in the future. No actual harm or incident is described as having occurred yet. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard because it outlines credible risks that advanced AI systems could pose if unchecked. It is not Complementary Information since it is not updating or responding to a past incident, nor is it unrelated as it directly addresses AI risks.