I think there is a problem with the "rationalist" people. Opinions in itself is a useful and scientific tool, but they seem to consider it as an insult. The re

I think there is a problem with the "rationalist" people. Opinions in itself is a useful and scientific tool, but they seem to consider it as an insult. The reality is that as soon as you go further than quite simple discussion, you reach places where your conclusions depends on your arbitrary values of what is more important than something else. For example, in the case of AI doom, one question is "why are you panicking about it and not panicking about children dying of hunger in remote countries or not panicking with the injustice generated by capitalism". This is not an argument to say that you should not panic, but this is to say that based on people "values", they will find things more or less scary and more or less worthy of panic. I guess some people are already used to the fact that the world is pretty messed up and that the danger of AI is just one on top of the others and therefore it does not generate any more reason to panic. Those reasons to panic are very much "opinions", and there is no rational answer that is better than all the others. It's not a bad word, it just means that different people will have different view of the world.