Tag: Alarmism

Why the AI Merchants of Doom are Dead Wrong

Hacking a weak computer system does not equal global doomsday.

The news has been full of articles recently about how we’re all going to die by 2030, 2027, or insert your year number.

AI doesn’t have to develop a doomsday virus, that world killing doomsday virus was already developed by the Aussie CSIRO in 2001 – who then promptly went on to tell everyone how to replicate their work.

A cyborg character with a part-human, part-machine face holds a gun while standing in a post-apocalyptic setting. In the background, a billboard displays a message about a mission to inconvenience humanity, featuring a humorous character. Nearby, robotic figures are partially illuminated by colorful lights.
AI generated by Grok

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Hacking a weak computer system does not equal global doomsday.

The news has been full of articles recently about how we’re all going to die by 2030, 2027, or insert your year number.

How Would AI Actually Kill Us All? What to Know About the AI Doomsday Debate

A growing chorus of AI researchers say the technology could wipe out humans—even if all the bots want to do is make paper clips

By Sam Schechner

Updated Sept. 9, 2026 at 8:25 pm ET

Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon resigned this week, saying his former employer and its rival OpenAI are racing to build technologies that “could kill us all by the end of the decade.”

In case anyone thought Coxon was alone in his views, a current Anthropic employee chimed in minutes later to confirm. “We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans!” wrote Evan Hubinger, whose job at Anthropic is to lead research about steering and controlling future artificial-intelligence systems. Hubinger put the extinction risk over the next decade at over 10%. 

In response, many humans are now asking two questions: How could that happen? And why would people who think AI is a real and growing threat build it anyway?

…

So-called doomers aren’t usually worried that the “Terminator” movies will come true, with robots actively trying to exterminate people. Their concerns fall mostly into two buckets: loss-of-control and human misuse. 

In one, highly intelligent AI agents capable of copying and improving themselves start pursuing their own goals and destroy humanity in the process. In the other, a nefarious human enlists a capable AI to do something like create novel viruses that wipe us all out. 

…Read more: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/how-would-ai-actually-kill-us-all-what-to-know-about-the-ai-doomsday-debate-034270d1?mod=hp_lead_pos7

For starters, we can discount the AI supervirus threat. AI doesn’t have to develop a doomsday virus, that world killing doomsday virus was already developed by the Aussie CSIRO in 2001 – who then promptly went on to tell everyone how to replicate their work. Aussie researchers stumbled across a simple genetic hack which sabotages the mammalian immune system, then witnessed its devastating effect when they inserted the genetic hack into a viral relative of smallpox. Then they tried the virus on some other rats to see if it killed all of them as well. Top marks for safety guys – it’s a wonder none of the scientists got infected.

Covid-19: That time Aussie Virologists Accidentally Created an Unstoppable Mouse Pathogen

My point is you don’t need AI to devastate the world with a supervirus – the research on how to do that has already been done.

As for AI copying and replicating itself, don’t make me laugh. Anyone who has ever done 3D printing or CNC machining, as I have, knows how crazy difficult it is to get the simplest processes right. The AI revolution would be over when the 3mm end mill snapped, and the US Postal Service refused to deliver a replacement. Who lost the batteries?

If you automated fabrication to the next level, with home built microchip fabrication, I’ve seen videos on people doing that and would have probably tried and completely messed it up myself, except that chip fabrication involves one of my least favourite deadly toxins, hydrofluoric acid. In any case, the kinds of chips you make with such processes are simple 1970s technology chips, so people who do this kind of thing are either obsessive hobbyists or researchers testing new design concepts.

The kinds of chips AI needs are so complicated to build, so far only a small number of Western companies have mastered their fabrication. Even the Chinese are struggling to copy the tech.

If a malevolent AI was to run such a fabrication plant, it could be stopped in its tracks simply by switching off the electricity, or blocking the supply of some vital tool or chemical required for fabrication.

An AI which hacks a bunch of software systems – that is a genuine threat, and I’m sure hackers are well up to speed on the latest AI tools. But AI is also being used to defend against threats, with AI threat vulnerability scanning of software turning up hundreds of defects which could have been used by hackers.

An AI which poses any genuine threat to the physical world – forget it. An AI which could even attempt such a feat is decades away, and when the threat finally emerges, such an AI would be so clumsy in its infancy, we would have plenty of opportunity to burn the building down and eliminate the threat before anything dangerous escaped.

Given the odds of a serious problem are so remote, why are researchers talking up the threat from AI?

I have three possible theories:

  1. They believe their own hype – lock a nerd in a dark room with lots of coffee and pizza, and we can get kind of obsessive.
  2. The drawbridge theory – if big AI companies scare legislators, the legislators might be stampeded into passing laws with high compliance costs, which makes it harder for newcomers with a bright idea to muscle in on their territory.
  3. Help the Democrats win the midterms – Democrats are increasingly turning to AI scare stories to try to win political support, as a replacement for the failed climate scam.
Bernie Sanders Proposes a “Ban Artificial Super-intelligence Act”

The drawbridge theory is particularly interesting. AI innovation is a big threat to the hyperscalers. I just purchased a US $12,000 computer which can run day to day AI models almost as well as my claude subscription. We are two hardware improvement cycles, as little as three years away from most people having access to affordable hardware which eliminates the need for AI hyperscalers. All these big players like Anthropic and OpenAI are looking increasingly like the mainframe bureaus of the 1970s, which all evaporated when mainframes dropped in price sufficiently that individuals and businesses which needed a powerful computer could buy their own.

The moment it becomes affordable to own a computer at home or in-house which can run open source AI models which do everything you want, independently of the hyperscalers, rather than paying for their services, their business model is toast. Who need hyperscaler radical left wing bias when you can program your own AI to share your values? Hyperscalers are doomed, unless they make some kind of breakthrough which keeps their services relevant, or frighten legislators into passing onerous compliance laws which block widespread private ownership of AI capable computers.

I’m not saying I know the drawbridge theory is definitely their motivation for trying to scare people, I don’t know what is really going through their heads. But the potential financial motivation sure makes drawbridge an interesting theory.

As a software developer and increasingly an AI specialist, I urge you all, please don’t be fooled – AI doomsday is all infowars and mind games.

Sabine Hossenfelder: “I Was Offered Money to Tell You AI Will Kill Us”

We defeated the merchants of doubt with their climate armageddon lies. Don’t let them get into your head with their AI fairytales.

The Devastating Ecological Carnage Wrought by Wind Turbines

Evidence continues to grow that onshore wind turbines are causing heavy ecological carnage, with increasing concern focused on the removal of a vast tonnage of insect life. For obvious political, Net Zero reasons, insect decimation is not a well-funded research area, but work in Germany in 2016 put the loss across the country at 1,200 tonnes a year. Recently, the Heartland Institute extrapolated the individual annual insect loss worldwide at 13,640,000,000,000 (13.64 quadrillion) insects, and of course it can be noted that the figures are nearly a decade out of date.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Evidence continues to grow that onshore wind turbines are causing heavy ecological carnage, with increasing concern focused on the removal of a vast tonnage of insect life. For obvious political, Net Zero reasons, insect decimation is not well-funded research area but work in Germany in 2016 put the loss across the country at 1,200 tonnes a year. Recently, the Heartland Institute extrapolated the individual annual insect loss worldwide at 13,640,000,000,000 (13.64 quadrillion) insects, and of course it can be noted that the figures are nearly a decade out of date. Other scientific work has reported that flying insects destroyed include bees, flying beetles and butterflies. Curiously, the many institutions apparently concerned with wildlife stay silent on the slaughter. For its part, the UK Natural History Museum (NHM) offers a Build Your Own Wind Turbine kit. Fun for all the family and if the kiddies are lucky, they might get to whack a passing fly or a couple of moths.

The German work estimated insect losses at 40 million per turbine during the plant-growing season. Commenting on the findings, the mathematician and evolutionary ecologist Professor Christian Voigt felt it was necessary to evaluate if these fatalities added to the decline of insect populations, “and potentially the extinction of species”. In a 2022 paper, Voigt reported that turbines can change the nearby microclimate, while vibrational noise may reduce earthworm abundance with likely cascading effects on soil quality and vegetation. In addition, he noted findings that wind turbine facilities led to displacement of nesting and wintering birds.

Recent work from researchers at the University of Wyoming suggests that moths, butterflies, beetles, flies and true bugs may be the most vulnerable to the giant revolving blades. Wind turbines create vortices, sucking in wildlife and causing problems for both bats and large birds such as eagles. “The vast amount of avian and insect deaths at the hands of wind turbines is disastrous in and of itself, from a conservation and ecological standpoint,” states Heartland.

Insect loss and extinctions are of course very popular in the Net Zero fear-mongering business. In 2022, the NHM ran with an improbable tale that flying insects in the UK had declined by 60% in just 20 years. Too good of course for national treasure Sir David Attenborough to pass up and he repeated the scare during his BBC Wild Isles series, a green agitprop co-production with the World Wildlife Fund and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The evidence proved to be anecdotal and mostly arose from ‘citizen scientists’ counting bugs on car number plates. Missing from the research was a note that vehicle registrations have tripled in the UK since 1970, while cars have largely changed shape from angular boxes to aerodynamic wedges that sweep insects out of the way.

Despite these obvious flaws in the story, the NHM claimed the astonishing loss was caused by rising temperatures and fragmented habitats. The tiny temperature rises over the last 20 years are hardly likely to affect insects that much, while slightly longer growing seasons in the northern hemisphere and a recent 14% ‘greening’ of the Earth due to higher levels of carbon dioxide are almost certain to have been extremely beneficial.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the conservation of wildlife is little more than an after-thought when it comes to pushing the Net Zero fantasy world of unreliable, expensive renewable energy. Almost invariably those crying loudest about insect decline are those pushing hardest for green energy boondoggles such as wind turbines. Yet it is known that turbines attract insects with their colour, lights and ambient heat. More attracted insects lead to more bats and birds which lead to more avian casualties, which lead to more ground animals scavenging, which in turn attracts larger raptors that cannot escape the turbine-generated wind currents. And so, the 150-mph revolving skyscraper-high blades set up their own circular killing fields.

The loss of insects is particularly disastrous since they are decomposers, crop pollinators and a crucial basis of the entire food chain. In April 2023, the Royal Entomological Society welcomed the opportunity to respond to a UK Government department on the issue of insect decline and food security. There was plenty to say on climate change of course and some interesting observations on the boom-and-bust nature of insect populations, but not a peep on the dead, wide areas of countryside created by wind turbines.

It might not worry the establishment insect brigade, but the colliding critters can be a big problem for turbine operators. Professor Voigt noted that insect remains collected during low wind periods disrupt airflow and can halve power generation during high wind periods. These days cleaning this muck off turbine blades is big business. Based in Glasgow, Balmore Wind Services offers a specialist rope access service for the difficult biomatter cleaning required by insects and bird fouling. One thing is certain, concludes Heartland: “Wind turbines undoubtedly cause massive avian and insect deaths on a yearly basis.”

With all the learned societies and institutions continuing to turn a blind eye, it is hard to see who will step forward to draw attention to this developing ecological disaster. Who will be the first to suggest that the proper place for a windmill is in a museum?

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

An A-Z of Climate Alarmism

A holiday quickie, for Guardian and BBC journalists

A holiday quickie, for Guardian and BBC journalists

From Climate Scepticism

BY MARK HODGSON

A is for Alarmism. Make it front and central in everything you write.

B is for Black. Be prepared to argue that it’s white.

C is for climate crisis, climate change, climate chaos. It’s also for carbon (nasty black stuff), but never carbon dioxide (don’t discuss it; never mention that it’s essential plant food).

D is for denier. There is no such thing as a sceptic. Deniers are a disgusting monolithic entity. Never acknowledge that they have legitimate concerns about net zero and climate policy.

E is for electric vehicles. They aren’t expensive, charge anxiety is a myth, they will save the planet, they don’t burst into flames and they definitely have lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles.

F is for fossil fuels. Nasty polluting stuff. It has never done anything to lift people out of poverty or to make life better. They have only ever been used by developed countries, and only they must pay for having used them.

G is for global. Everything is going to hell in a handcart on a global scale.

H is for heat. Always emphasise increased deaths from increased heat. Never ever mention that far more people die from extreme cold than do from extreme heat, nor talk about the fact that gentle warming is for the foreseeable future likely to reduce rather than increase deaths from extreme temperatures.

I is for investment. Always refer to spending on renewables, net zero, and all the rest as an investment, never as a cost.

J is for Just Transition. We don’t have a clue how to protect the poor from the damaging effects of net zero policies, but it’s important to maintain the illusion that they’ll be protected by the Just Transition.

K is for Kyoto. It’s not as important as Paris, but always refer to it in glowing terms.

L is for language. The language you use is important. Always use extreme language to get your message across.

M is for methane. People seem to be tiring of “carbon” scare stories, so use methane to up the ante.

N is for net zero. The Holy Grail.

O is for optimism. Never worry that net zero is impracticable. Always be upbeat.

P is for pylons. They are a good thing.

Q is for quolls. They’re Australian animals, so they’re bound to be endangered by climate change.

R is for renewable energy. Don’t listen to engineers who tell you it’s impracticable at scale or to scare-mongers who point out that its costs (ahem, investment levels) are going up, not down.

S is for Smart Meters. They are a good thing too. Never talk about the massive cost of rolling them out – always refer to it as an investment.

T is for turbines. They don’t kill bats and birds, they don’t devastate the environment, they don’t involve cutting down trees and digging up peat, and they are cheap.

U isn’t for unreliable, whatever the deniers say. Renewable energy works 24/7.

V is for volcanoes. They can’t possibly have anything to do with the climate.

W is for whales. They are under threat, from climate change, from naval exercises, from oil and gas exploration, but never from anything to do with wind farms.

X is for XR. They are beacons of truth, suffering so that we may be saved.

Y is for yearly weather. Always make out that this year’s weather was more extreme than the last.

Z is for zero emissions – even better than net zero!