arXiv:2606.08832v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent years have seen increasing concern that artificial intelligence may soon pose an existential risk to humanity. One leading ground for concern is that artificial agents may be power-seeking, aiming to acquire power and in the process disempowering humanity. I show how the argument from power-seeking rests on a strong version of a claim known as the instrumental convergence thesis. I explore leading defenses of the instrumental convergence thesis and argue that none establishes the thesis in a strong enough form to ground the argument from p
The proliferation of advanced AI research brings increasing scrutiny to potential existential risks, making theoretical explorations of AI alignment and control more urgent.
This research provides a critical analytical framework for understanding and debating one of the core arguments for AI existential risk, influencing regulatory and development pathways.
The debate around AI safety shifts from broad fear to a more specific examination of the 'instrumental convergence thesis' and its foundational assumptions, potentially influencing how AI alignment efforts are prioritized.
- · AI ethicists
- · AI safety researchers
- · Philosophers of technology
- · Overly alarmist AI risk proponents
- · AI developers ignoring safety paradigms
Refined understanding of AI existential risk arguments.
Prioritization of specific AI alignment research areas that address or rebut the instrumental convergence thesis.
Potential shifts in public policy and regulatory frameworks regarding AI development, focusing on control mechanisms.
This signal links to a primary source. Continuum Brief monitors and indexes it as part of the live intelligence stream — we do not republish source content.
Read at arXiv cs.AI