Emily M. Bender @emilymbender.bsky.social · 06/10/2026I appreciated this chance to go on Bloomberg Tech, though it's always a bit odd to have a conversation with a reporter who is really interested in what's effectively a fictional story. www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/...bloomberg.comWatch Bender: AI’s ‘Existential’ Risk Is ‘Fake’ - BloombergUniversity of Washington professor Emily Bender argues the AI safety debate is too focused on hypothetical existential threats while overlooking harms already happening today. She points to environmen...10:45 PM · Oct 6, 2026 510827
Boxo McFoxo @boxobark.ing · 06/10/2026↪ Replying to @emilymbender.bsky.socialHe seemed genuinely confused that you weren't engaging in the fiction with him. Epistemic capture is a bit cringe. 1160
Jeff Janis @jeffjanis.bsky.social · 06/10/2026↪ Replying to @emilymbender.bsky.socialI somewhat disagree with you about job replacement, as this journalist could easily be replaced by AI, since he was terrible! You handled his tone with intelligence and grace. 👍🏻 200
spaghezzy @spaghezzy.bsky.social · 06/10/2026↪ Replying to @emilymbender.bsky.socialThanks for your efforts in debunking the anthropomorphic myths and highlighting the real issues that need dealing with. 040
transcrypt.bsky.social @transcrypt.bsky.social · 07/10/2026↪ Replying to @emilymbender.bsky.socialYou often say doom scenarios are “science fiction.” Okay, so? Hinton, Gates, Yudkowsky etc spell out plausible scenarios. Yes they sound like science fiction, but so do all our chatbot conversations. I think the reporter wanted you to say concisely why you don’t see existential risk…he’s not alone 230