I think that's an equivocation, which blends two extremely different kinds of "dangerous", ex:

1. "Our new car has soo much raw power and incredible armor on it, be glad we're the ones building or else bad guys would use a fleet of them to take over the world! How will you stay safe without being in one yourself? Invest today or be left behind!"

2. "So, uh, nobody can consistently steer our car properly, it keeps veering sideways sometimes, especially at high speeds, and people are finding sneaky ways of tricking it into slamming into barriers and turning pedestrians into pink fog..."

▲

SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent [-]

They say the second thing repeatedly and emphatically. You may not be aware of it because, when they do, critics make fun of them for believing a computer program could be so dangerous that the authors need to put controls on how it may be steered.

	▲	Avicebron 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's not why critics make fun of them. It's because their answer to "oh no we're accidentally creating the godhead. Someone please, give us power, your money, and praise, it's the only thing we can do." It's vile hypocrisy. If they want to be priests, strip them of everything and they can live and work out of a concrete box in a mid-western cornfield. Why the material distraction if they are so religiously pure. I know these people and I can tell you they aren't close to as smart as they think they are. Do you remember Yudowsky's "math petss"?