I see no point in making this a numbers game. (Like, I was supposed to say "five" or something?)

Let's make it more of a category thing: when AI shows itself responsible for a new category of life-saving technique, like a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, then I'd have to reconsider.

(And even then, it will be balanced against rising sea levels, extinctions, and other energy use effects.)

> when AI shows itself responsible for a new category of life-saving technique, like a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, then I'd have to reconsider.

We’re way past that

Please, go into detail!

Here’s a good exercise;

Search through github for commits authored by .edu, .ac.uk etc emails and spend a few days understanding what they’ve been building the past few years. Once you’ve picked your jaw off the floor, take another 10 minutes to appreciate that this is just the public code by some researchers, and is crumbs compared to what is being built right now behind closed doors.

Tenured professors are abdicating their teaching positions to work on startups. Commercial labs are pouring billions into tech that was unreachable just a few years ago. Academic labs are downscaling their interns 20x. Historically hermit companies are opening their doors to build partnerships in industry.

The scale of what is happening is difficult to comprehend.

AlphaFold?

How many lives have been saved by AI? How many lives have been lost because of it?

Not what I’m asking. But idk, do you have stats? I wouldn’t say _lost_ as a ding against, _ruined_ or _negatively impacted_ is sufficiently a problem