…major publicly traded cybersecurity firms lost roughly $65–80 billion, or about 8–10% of their combined value, in the days following disclosure of the Hugging Face/OpenAI incident; by early September they had recovered roughly $58 billion, representing about 70–90% of that drawdown, depending on whether July 15 or July 20 is used as the pre-event baseline.

That is from GPT Pro, there is more at the link.  As a very rough approximation, say you dismiss the price bounceback altogether as either random or due to good earnings reports.  You have “the value of previous cybersecurity efforts” falling by eight to ten percent.  I take that to be very broadly consistent with some of the estimates discussed in my previous post on the numbers.

In any case that is a significant sum.  But do note that if the AI models were on the verge of doing truly terrible things to us, the market might estimate the value of our cyberprotection of falling more than eight to ten percent?

More generally, perhaps these numbers could be used to discipline the discussion a bit?  Or will I read long lists of reasons why they show us nothing, in that case try coming up with some other market price-based indicators of AI risk?  Vix will not do it for you, not these days.  I see many metaphors and insinuations and random anecdotes of AI terror, not numbers.  Maybe you think your ideas about AI risk are so important that no market prices can reflect them?  (If you really believe that, does it mean you would not be worried, and would not cite the numbers, if the value of those companies fell by ninety percent?)

I am sure others can improve on what I am putting forward, and furthermore we should track the continuing progress of these share values over time, especially if other AI hack attacks surface.

Overall I am extremely skeptical of arguments that essentially take the form of “what I am concerned about is too big and too important to show up in any market prices.”  Pick your market prices!