[taberiand]

My point was we don't need an AI to make a mess of things, we already have the ability to do that ourselves - and with the way we're going with climate change, a very likely collapse of society and path to extinction, it seems pretty obvious to me that an AI couldn't do much worse (though it might do it much faster and more efficiently, which would probably be a net benefit for the earth).

Basically, everything you point out I agree with, except replace "benevolent AI" with "myopic human".

[edanm]

Climate change is not a path to collapse of society and extinction, in most scenarios that scientists believe even remotely likely.

AI (or other future technologies) really can be a path to extinction.

[taberiand]

If you find the idea of climate change leading to societal collapse far fetched, you must surely find the concept of a rogue AI even more so - the science is much more solid and certain on the climate (and I don't think the science says the scenarios that lead to social collapse are as unlikely you think)

I also think it says more about our own human failings than the true risks of general AI, that we imagine it more likely to go rogue and kill us all instead of being more adept, more benevolent and capable at managing the complexity of society than our own feeble attempts.