AI safety / x-risk folks have in fact made extensive and detailed arguments. Occasionally, folks arguing against them rise to the same standard. But most of the arguments against AI safety look a lot more like name-calling and derision: "nuh-uh, that's sci-fi and unrealistic (mic drop)". That's not a counterargument.
> If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behaviour is clear: they could cause immense, species-level damage.
That's easy to say now, now that the damage is largely done, they've been not only tested but used, many countries have them, the knowledge for how to make them is widespread.
How many people arguing against AI safety today would also have argued for widespread nuclear proliferation when the technology was still in development and nothing had been exploded yet? How many would have argued against nuclear regulation as being unnecessary, or derided those arguing for such regulation as unrealistic or sci-fi-based?
> If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behaviour is clear: they could cause immense, species-level damage.
That's easy to say now, now that the damage is largely done, they've been not only tested but used, many countries have them, the knowledge for how to make them is widespread.
How many people arguing against AI safety today would also have argued for widespread nuclear proliferation when the technology was still in development and nothing had been exploded yet? How many would have argued against nuclear regulation as being unnecessary, or derided those arguing for such regulation as unrealistic or sci-fi-based?