> they wanted to deprioritize safety Who is saying this? Simply stating that a system is imperfect is not advocating abolishment (current social issues notwit

> they wanted to deprioritize safety Who is saying this? Simply stating that a system is imperfect is not advocating abolishment (current social issues notwithstanding...), it's an invitation to explore other solutions. someone: X is imperfect and has unsatisfactory outcomes you: X implies Y, how dare you hate Y? > By advocating for a different model, we're stating "Avoiding injuring humans in drug discovery is not our primary concern." I don't know if you can see that your argument is a claim that safety can only exist iff we keep the current system unaltered. That there is no other system conceivable which could do better. Which is clearly absurd.