I agree. >once B is substantially lower than A It's the presumption that this ^ is a given; that's what I have a problem with. I think people assume B will c

I agree. >once B is substantially lower than A It's the presumption that this ^ is a given; that's what I have a problem with. I think people assume B will continue to decrease in a linear fashion, (or maybe log/exp, but at least not hitting it's asymptote / limit until it's less than A). But we're already seeing diminishing returns, and since A and B are both difficult to measure, I think presuming that the good will automatically outweigh the bad (at least in the foreseeable future) is nothing more than blind hope at this point. There's also no reason to believe that it won't become more dangerous at some point. Look at air travel. Automation made great improvements in safety without many downsides. Until maybe about 10 years ago, when automation related accidents started creeping up (yet usually blamed on pilot error). And then you get to the 737-max problem. (I'm not claiming air travel is more dangerous, it's not. But mechanical reliability and materials testing / repair are doing far more for safety than automation is. Modern jet engines are an underappreciated marvel of science.) Personally, I would accept a greater risk for the convenience of being driven by AI, and I don't think I'm alone. I just think it's a bit of blind hope (and even some arrogance) to assume AI will be safer anytime soon.