> Nassim is arguing that RISK is a separate discipline, separate from the domain where risk applies. That a person building AI is not the correct choice for est

> Nassim is arguing that RISK is a separate discipline, separate from the domain where risk applies. That a person building AI is not the correct choice for estimating AI risk. I think this is often fair. It's actually one of my primary criticisms of the NeurIPS/ICML survey. FWIW, people working on AI Safety -- like, actually working on it, not philosophizing about it -- are some of the most incredulous and annoyed about the "AGI => extinction" crowd.