If it's "10% it ends humanity" and "20% it solves climate change and saves humanity" then is it still bad?

Potentially. If we could put a precise probability on it, we could maybe make an informed decision on whether we want to play that Russian roulette as a species.

But the reality is that experts' probabilities for human extinctions vary wildly, with the lab leaders at 20%-30% and these researchers at >10% (he didn't state how much higher...), LeCun at <0.01% and the other two godfathers of AI, Bengio and Hinton at >10%.

And this decision to take our shot is not taken in a democratic way by humanity as a whole, but by a few companies racing as fast as possible.

So as long as no one can put an upper bound on the extinction risk, development must be globally shut down.

Any indication how it could solve climate change?

Because I'm seeing mainly hacker attacks, job insecurity, environmental impacts and vague threats with smiling faces.

It's bad that a few people are making such a gamble on behalf of billions. That could work if climate change were literally an asteroid about to strike the Earth and AI was the only thing that could figure out how to alter it's course before then. But it doesn't really work when climate change will unfold as a catastrophe over the next few centuries. Because then it becomes a decision the entire planet should be making over time, not a few tech billionaires and their friends in government.

AI is a massive contributor to climate change lol