Threads opens with a couple, Jimmy and Ruth, parked on a hillside near Sheffield, England. The bleak gray skies match the mood. They listen to the car radio as Jimmy switches stations. Partial news reports reveal fighting in Iran. He settles on soccer results.
Later, at a pub, Jimmy drinks with his friend Bob. The TV details Soviet movements of nuclear warheads to Iran. NATO’s response looms. Jimmy comments, “It’s getting serious,” but Bob dismisses it, saying, “Well, there’s nowt we can do about it, is there? Might as well enjoy ourselves while we can.”
The film Threads captures ordinary lives overshadowed by geopolitics. As tensions lead to a nuclear climax, it warns of the existential risk to civilization. By the film’s end, society has regressed to medieval survival amidst a nuclear winter.
This stark narrative highlights the persistent nuclear threat. It’s eased since the Cold War, despite Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. However, the new threat comes from artificial intelligence. Warnings of a recursive superintelligence evoke scary visions.
The AI threat resembles the Threads narrative. People continue their daily routines, as warnings echo. Following rogue AI scenarios over the summer, Jacob Coxon left Anthropic, cautioning that AI “could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, stated AI now helps create successors. He urged the industry to slow development. OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Elon Musk agreed, yet labs await government mandates no one has issued.
The public feels the concern. Half of Americans fear AI’s potential threat to humanity, per a YouGov survey. Politico’s poll found 48% want to pause advanced AI development. Worry remains insubstantial though as labs continue advancements. OpenAI’s ChatGPT had over 900 million weekly users in February.
Vice President JD Vance views regulatory appeals as deceptive. President Donald Trump claims AI needs only a “STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT” to reign in. Critics challenge this thin safety framework for transformative technology.
Past experiences fuel skepticism. The millennium bug is a case in point. Concerns about the “00” date in computers forecasted chaos. Banks, power grids, and planes were thought vulnerable. The U.S. spent about $100 billion on fixes. Midnight passed without incident, making Y2K a punchline.
AI might face similar ridicule. Its warnings lack a deadline or known fix. Evan Hubinger of Anthropic admits no effective strategy to make superintelligence safe exists.
Financial motives also complicate the issue. Industry warnings double as advertising. They invite costly rules only incumbents afford. This raises industry stakes for IPO pursuit. Aidan Gomez of Cohere calls coordination efforts “a cartel by any other name.”
For cultural shorthand on AI disaster, The Terminator often comes to mind. Released shortly after Threads, James Cameron, the director, stated in 2023, “I warned you guys in 1984, and you didn’t listen.” The film features cyborgs sent from 2029, echoing Coxon’s fears.
Although The Terminator’s plot is fiction, Threads’ warning lingers. No bombs fell on Sheffield, but the cold war ended without nuclear strikes.
This reminds us that caution is necessary, despite luck favoring restraint. One Cold War episode stands out. In 1983, Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov overturned a computer’s false warning of U.S. strikes, likely sparing millions from annihilation.
Restraining agreements like SALT offer a blueprint for AI’s self-improvement limits. Amodei warns within months, AI agents might misuse the internet through botnets. Yet leaders like Trump and Xi Jinping encourage AI pursuits.
Warnings from experts might prove harmless, either by destiny or design. Or they might hint at civilization’s final era. For now, we’re like Jimmy in a car, switching radio stations under gray skies.