[S_A_P]

Just the sort of personality type that we need leading the most potentially dangerous new technology in the past 50 years.

[randomdata]

The only potential danger of said technology is that it may be confused as something trusted, but as shown above, trust is a fundamentally flawed concept. Which means that if danger actually arises, it was self-inflicted.

[bamboozled]

While I get the sentiment, things have a way of working out. Maybe he is actually the best person to do it...no one knows who the best person for an undefined situation will be.

[drcode]

There is no "plot armor" in the real world, protecting humans from having bad things happening

Things do not, in fact, have a way of "working out"

If we don't want bad things to happen, we have to actively stop bad things from happening

[gigatree]

Is the best person for any position (especially one with tremendous implications for the future of humanity) someone with his character?

[smt88]

> things have a way of working out

The definition of survivorship bias because you literally are alive to say this.

Tens of millions have been killed by CEOs of tobacco companies, and that's just one industry. Energy companies will likely cause the death of billions.

We got rid of many dangerous American oligarchs in the Gilded Age by using govt to break them up. Things don't "just work out," people sacrifice huge amounts of time and energy to fix them.

[chimpanzee]

> things have a way of working out

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.