> Plenty of experts think now is a good time to be spendning at least some resources on this. And we're not talking nuclear fusion level resources here; I don't

> Plenty of experts think now is a good time to be spendning at least some resources on this. And we're not talking nuclear fusion level resources here; I don't know the numbers, but I imagine the amount of resources are actually fairly tiny compared to almost all other scientific spending. (And this was certainly true 10 years ago.) The risk theses experts are talking about isn't existential. Its stuff like GPT3 being truncated to generate propaganda for dictatorships, deepfakes, algorithm-reinforced biases in all kinds of models (because the data used to train them was generated by humans). This is concerning to some degree and deserves funding and research (though all too often the results boil down to unusable advice and guidelines). This is entirely orthogonal to any existential risk a supposed AGI might create. One is a testable scientific hypothesis and the other is a futurist horror story which is untestable by definition.