Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker thinks fears of AI wiping out humanity are overblown. He makes his case in an open letter on Quillette addressed to Scott Alexander, the psychiatrist and influential tech blogger who had challenged him to a public debate on AI’s existential risks. Pinker declined, dismissing such events as a “spectator sport.”

Pinker argues that doomsday scenarios like the paperclip maximizer, in which an AI sacrifices humanity to make more paperclips, confuse intelligence with a drive to dominate. They also assume AI systems would fixate maniacally on a single goal.

Pinker has been optimistic about AI before, but he now admits he underestimated how capable large language models would become. He also didn’t see how recklessly AI companies would release their products. Ironically, that rush is being led by people from the same community that warns about these risks.

The dangers Pinker takes seriously are bioterrorism, cyberattacks, and unchecked AI agents. Doomsday rhetoric won’t do anything about them, he writes. What works is sober safety engineering built on independent oversight, liability, and human control.

Alexander laid out his own position on his blog in June. He puts the odds that AI wipes out humanity at 20 percent and wants both better safety research and international agreements to slow AI development.