I'd certainly listen to whatever arguments they present and am open to more data and risks I haven't considered. But hard science PhD researchers are humans, an

I'd certainly listen to whatever arguments they present and am open to more data and risks I haven't considered. But hard science PhD researchers are humans, and humans are self-interested creatures that can get the risk-assessment on something very wrong. And humans can be influenced by movies as well. And speaking of hard science, well, is predicting AI's role and the consequences in the future really even an output of the scientific method? Aren't we pretty much all just dealing with opinions here? I saw a headline on HN today that set off a different sort of alarm bell for me. > Experts say humans could be wrestling AI for control by 2035 What does that form of media message remind you of?