But what argument is there to refute? It feels like Aquinas “proving” God’s existence by stating that it is self evident.
They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it.
They can’t point to an existing system that poses existential risk, because it doesn’t exist. They can’t point to a clear architecture for such a system, because we don’t know how to build it.
So again, what can be refuted?