> The framework difference comes from people believing in short-term gains (like revenue, abusing the novelty factor, etc.) vs those trying to reasonably minimi

> The framework difference comes from people believing in short-term gains (like revenue, abusing the novelty factor, etc.) vs those trying to reasonably minimize harm. OK - so your framework is "harm minimization". This is kind of a negative utilitarian philosophy. Not everyone thinks this way and you cannot really expect them to either. But an argument _for_ AI from a negative utilitarian PoV is also easy to construct. What if AI accelerates the discovery of anti-cancer treatments or revolutionizes green tech. What if AI can act as a smart resource allocator and enables small hi-tech sustainable communes. These are not things you can easily prove AI won't enable even within your framework.