Regarding the comparison: it's just that there are infinitely many modes of transporting people different from cars, that's why I argued against it.

I would not argue against the point that cars in themselves are very useful.

If the point however is how we are using them and how many of them we build or how we arrange our living around the necessary public infrastructure to use cars for anythint, I'm not sure if I agree.

IMO, as of now, this is a case of "market failure", if you will. But I know that the majority of people don't agree with this.

As I see it, one of the main usages of cars seems to be to use them for not having to be around car traffic: e.g. living in suburbs, "escaping" into nature on the weekends.

I don't think anyone (well maybe the Amish) are arguing that all technology is bad. Only that some technology might be bad, and it is worth trying to figure out the implications of releasing increasingly capable models to the public.

>For cars, the positives outweigh the negatives

TBD: climate change is the unaddressed elephant in that room

Is this meant to be convincing? All you’re doing is asserting that the positives outweigh the negatives and starting from there.

That is the point of disagreement. We do not currently know if the positives outweigh the negatives.

I am saying that market incentives are good at spurring more people to scale these systems and their deployments up, and those incentives are not good at mitigating negative externalities.

What I am pointing out is that the system of incentives surrounding these technologies has failed to produce anything resembling a safe development trajectory. No, these systems are not quite sky-is-falling-scary yet, but if AI development achieves its promise, they absolutely will be.

We have no reason to believe, as a commenter asserts below, that in just a few more inches closer to potential catastrophe we (who?) will decide (how?) to pull the reins (where?).