Well that's a relief. All we have to do is make sure to avoid human failures and we're safe from superintelligent AI.

I get the snark (and slightly agree), but that's not really what GP or TFA were saying at all. They are saying that these were the least things we could have done.

What you're saying is, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"

while the author of the TFA was saying, in effect: "your scientists didn't even bother with the most basic duty of care"

Life finds a way, or, in this case, super-intelligent AI.

	▲	estearum 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is the case with all complex system failures. There were always obvious fixes that could’ve prevented it. Problem is that there are an infinite number of obvious fixes to make at any time to any system, and the reason we don’t is because we have finite resources and no reason to fix X over Y until oops turns out X was “responsible” for this most recently realized failure. But of course it could have just as easily been Y, or Z, or any of the other infinite “obvious fixes not-yet-realized into catastrophe.”