[f154hfds]

How does the author dismantle everything? He literally concludes with:

> Conclusion: I Genuinely Don’t Know What These People Are Thinking

Two things can be true at the same time (and are always true of 100's of aspects of modern life):

1. A devastating possibility is in theory possible, the likelihood of it happening is non-zero.

2. We can't live and make decisions catastrophizing given _we have absolutely no understanding_ about the real likelihood.

Is the coffee example a good argument? Of course not! But do we know the likelihood of humanity's ability to create super intelligence AND that that intelligence will cause unimaginable suffering? Uh I don't think so?

[williamcotton]

The comment I am responding to is a worse version of the coffee argument.