> Maybe today's RNAi solutions are provably safe, but what about some AI concocted future version I'm actually finding it hard to imagine a scenario where you

> Maybe today's RNAi solutions are provably safe, but what about some AI concocted future version I'm actually finding it hard to imagine a scenario where you would accept any invention of any kind. Try to think of an invention that an AI (whatever you mean by this) couldn't make dangerous. I mean, literally any invention, past, present or even imagined. This is not rhetorical - you name something that seems obviously safe and I'll play the weaponizing AI. > Nothing is truly safe without safeguards What additional safeguards do you want, specifically? Again, not rhetorical. There's absolutely no way this could impact human health, so the only real concern is that it might affect organism other than the pest in question (though they'd need to be relatively closely related, and also eat the crops being sprayed or nearby plants - it can't go far because there are so many things that degrade RNA everywhere). Existing pesticides (that are being used right now) already have this problem and are often very broad-spectrum. > I'm just against the breathless enthusiasm for the magic of science to solve all problems if only we put our blind faith in the Midgley's of the world Not everyone is Thomas Midgley. Some (most?) people actually want to make the world better, and not adopting those improvements also has costs. And I'm here to make this less magical. I don't want you to need faith. I'm literally in this thread to demystify the technology just since it seems like a clear win over every other alternative that I know about, and there's clearly a lot of trepidation based on your responses and the responses of others.