Sure, lets question climate change. Until it is conclusively proven not a threat, assume the worst case predictions and act accordingly. Faced with an unknown threat, anything else would be irresponsible. Uncertainty and doubt cut both ways.
Let it continue to 'cut both ways' - should we apply the logic of 'assume worst case predictions and act accordingly' to all that ails society?
The worst case predictions of muslim immigration into Europe are pretty bad, should the E.U seal the turkish border and Med ports with the gusto they hereunto reserved for greenhouse gas reductions?
Going to be pretty interesting if/when there's enough climate disruption to force those in the north to migrate southward. How would that fit into your 'logic'?
There are no such predictions you can trust. This is an ultra right wing talking point and could not be further from the truth.
What’s really true is that the EU border is being expanded the minute I post this comment: The EU works with authoritarians and terrorists of all kinds to stop people from fleeing their war and poverty ridden countries. Look at every country in Northern Africa and the upcoming budget for the EU’s equivalent of ICE, Frontex.
Your racist talking point does not have merit to it and you should reconsider the way you consume news in general.
So according to your logic, AI should be heavily controlled and regulated, and possibly banned? The effect of AI on society is much less predictable than GW and has much higher ceiling for how bad the outcome may be.
Edit: my mistake. Human or near human AI. But there are strong arguments for lower forms of AI.
Unlike greenhouse gasses, it matters a lot what type of 'AI' you mean. But until we reshape society to be ready for it, yes, it would probably be a very good idea to forbid or heavily regulate/limit the use of human-level or above general AI.
