Jens Martin Skibsted Quotes

Faced with the profound changes that AI technologies can produce, pressure for "more" and "tougher" regulation is inevitable. Misunderstanding about what AI is and is not, especially against a background of scare-mongering, could fuel opposition to technologies that could benefit everyone. This would be a tragic mistake. Regulation that stifles innovation, or relocates it to other jurisdictions, would be similarly counterproductive.

Public trust is a vital condition for artificial intelligence to be used productively.

The first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.

We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes.

Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.

What all of us have to do is to make sure we are using AI in a way that is for the benefit of humanity, not to the detriment of humanity.

I do think there should be some regulations on AI.

It is deeply against my principles to work on any project that I think is to weaponize AI.

Giving the control over powerful AI to the highest bidder is unlikely to lead to the best world we can imagine.

The main reason I backed DeepMind was strategic: I see my role as bridging the AI research and AI safety communities.

The computers are in control. We just live in their world.

I don't want to be a driving machine on my daily commute; I want to be driven by a machine.

Secrecy is the underlying mistake that makes every innovation go wrong in Michael Crichton novels and films! If AI happens in the open, then errors and flaws may be discovered in time... perhaps by other, wary AIs!

It's perfectly reasonable to say that AIs are potentially dangerous. That seems to me like a statement of fact.

Once we no longer have the intellectual upper hand, then we quite literally, by definition, cannot outwit our successors. So unless we are absolutely sure that the machines we are building right now are not going to eventually become our new robot overlords, prudence is called for.

Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and others have stated that they think AI is an existential risk. I disagree. I don't see a risk to humanity of a 'Terminator' scenario or anything of the sort.

We have this yearning to know the answers to the big questions about space and why we're here; we can't evolve fast enough to figure these answers out on our own, but we can do it through artificial intelligence. But there's also some very scary downsides that could come if we don't put the right safety precautions in there.

We all have a responsibility to make sure everyone - including companies, governments, and researchers - develop AI with diversity in mind.

If you believe everything you read, you are probably quite worried about the prospect of a superintelligent, killer AI.

There are many valid concerns about AI, from its impact on jobs to its uses in autonomous weapons systems and even to the potential risk of superintelligence.

It's much more likely that an asteroid will strike the Earth and annihilate life as we know it than AI will turn evil.

Now that we all live in a bad '70s sci-fi movie, I am made to understand the tyranny of the machines every minute of every day.

I think it's important for us to have a rule that if a system is really an AI bot, it ought to be labeled as such. 'AI inside.' It shouldn't pretend to be a person. It's bad enough to have a person calling you and harassing you, or emailing you. What if they're bots? An army of bots constantly haranguing you - that's terrible.

I could do a whole talk on the question of is AI dangerous.' My response is that AI is not going to exterminate us. It's a tool that's going to empower us.

Weaponized AI is probably one of the most sensitized topics of AI - if not the most.