[stale2002]

Unfortunately, we are at the point where people's identities are wrapped up in this.

I would love it if people were having well reasoned discussions of the risk of AI, that are grounded in actual evidence of what capabilities AI has today, and how they might incrementally change in the future to cause more or less damage.

But unfortunately whenever I try to discuss grounded risks, I get responses that reference the anthropogenic principle or other similar unfalsifiable claims. The arguments amount to "Well, of course I can't show you evidence of how AI is going to end the world! If I could, then the world would already be over!".

Which is an awfully convenient excuse for why your arguments are a special case that don't have to proved with evidence, like any other claim. Its perfect for a side that knows that it doesn't have any!

I can be convinced out of my position, with evidence. But I have no idea what proof I could possibly show the other side to do the same for them.