Nothing is ever 100% safe, it’s about a right balance of safety to the benefit.

Or, in other words - we have two P(Doom), one for AI being developed, and another for AI being not developed. The latter is not discussed enough imho.

▲

estearum an hour ago | parent [-]

We have P(Doom) also for "kolinko not wiring me a million dollars today" and that is not being discussed enough either imho.

What on earth are you talking about?

	▲	ViscountPenguin an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		P(doom) for not making an ASI is pretty well established, I'm not really sure why everyone in the 21st century seems to have completely forgotten the risk of nuclear war (as the single largest example).
	▲	bigmadshoe 42 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The comment was unclear, but my interpretation (also my opinion): 1) there are inherent risks involved with developing AI, 2) there are benefits to developing AI, 3) thus, it's entirely possible that the downside from the risks outweighs the upsides. In this case, the correct thing to do would be to not develop AI at all. Regarding 1), there are many non-existential problems with AI that are already causing societal harm, i.e. debasing truth via generated videos and images, AI girlfriends, overwhelming quantities of slop content, unemployment, record carbon emissions, etc. Regarding 2), I'm not personally convinced that the upside is there for the average person. I really hope to be convinced otherwise however.