1. We must do something because AIs can be dangerous.

2. AI safety research attempts to mitigate some AI dangers.

3. Therefore we must fund AI safety research.

Yup, checks out.

The gods are vengeful.

The priests say virgin sacrifices pacify the gods.

Therefore we must sacrifice a virgin on every new moon. While we are at it, we should also build a palatial mansion for the wise priests.

Yup, checks out.

> The priests say virgin sacrifices pacify the gods.

An argument that depends on equating priests and scientists is an argument that fails.

Except most AI safety doesn't involve scientists. In an extreme example, AI safety research funding funded harry potter fanfiction.

Do you actually have empirical data demonstrating that scientists aren't concerned about AI, or that "most" AI safety doesn't involve scientists, or is this just your gut feeling?

Edit: for instance, here's a computer science professor and neurologist who published a serious book about all the dangers of AI, and calling for funding safety research:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Compatible-Artificial-Intellige...

Furthermore, AI safety programs are hiring actual AI researchers and computer scientists to actually do the work, so are you claiming that these people don't sincerely believe in the work they're doing?

This would be more convincing if it wasn’t so bad faith