Yes, I really do need that explained to me, and no I'm not kidding when I say I don't see us heading for that future. Hey, I could be wrong! I'm willing to be

Yes, I really do need that explained to me, and no I'm not kidding when I say I don't see us heading for that future. Hey, I could be wrong! I'm willing to be wrong, this is not my primary domain of expertise. But I remain unconvinced by arguments that are consequentialist without any reasoning about the specifics, because they are just as susceptible to be hysterical as they are to being valid. Tell me exactly how you envision us getting from the current state of artificial intelligence to, "an arbitrary person to automate the design and deployment of a bomb, such that dangerous warfare is meaningfully democratized." I understand you think this is possible; a lot of things are possible. I want to know how you think we can get from point A to point B. I don't want to hear something that devolves to, runaway or recursive AI self-improvement. I'm a technical person - if that's a component of your argument, I want to understand how exactly you see the current state of the art in AI research proceeding to something that empowers people to participate in warfare with unprecedented capability and autonomy. "Programming" is a force multiplier, as is "lots of money." Let's talk about specifics, because very few people counter that it's simply not possible, they counter that it's not a priority concern, and they do so aware of the things you said. I can't combat an argument if you don't provide a sufficient amount of precision as to be refutable, and I'm going to have to say that I don't really worry more about AI on an axiomatic basis, just as I don't really worry about the Sun exploding. It's possible, it will probably happen, but is it relevant and how does it happen?