> Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondar

> Imagine the same argument, for a hypothetical "reality annihilation" technology - justifying research in an area that is actively harmful and creates secondary, tertiary, and ... Nth order effects just because "others will do it" is not a useful baseline by which to decide what to do, IMO. But why not? Long as we're talking about 'reality annihilation' technology, maybe the researches stumble upon unknown truths about reality. Perhaps they also touch upon 'reality creating' technology, giving them infinite cups of Earl Gray tea. As long as someone is going to use AI to create immense wealth for themselves, and potentially destructive weapons, as a European, I think we'd be fools not to try and at least understand the developments, the risks, and have contingency plans (think Batman) for dealing with what might come out of it. Things we can't do without our own research and know how.