For this argument to be persuasive, you'd have to argue that doomsaying gains more influence/funding/etc. than mainstream AI development. I'm not sure this is

For this argument to be persuasive, you'd have to argue that doomsaying gains more influence/funding/etc. than mainstream AI development. I'm not sure this is true in general? Like, I believe https://intelligence.org/ https://intelligence.org/ has operated on a comparative shoestring for most of its existence, e.g. no salaries above $100K https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qqhdj3W3vSfB5E9ss/siai-an-examination https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qqhdj3W3vSfB5E9ss/siai-an-ex... The default is: running a nonprofit generates less revenue than running a for-profit. I've talked to a lot of the AI "doomsayers" in person and I believe they are sincere in their worries. That's not to say I agree with all their ideas unreservedly -- there is a fair amount of disagreement among the doomsaying crowd. There is an entire spectrum of beliefs about the likelihood of doomsday, and lots of debate, see e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/s/n945eovrA3oDueqtq https://www.lesswrong.com/s/n945eovrA3oDueqtq However I don't think this is a Machiavellian ploy for influence/funding/etc.