Given that homo sapiens, the most intelligent species on this planet, has generally made life miserable for all of the other species, I'd like to turn that challenge around: How about a proof that superhuman AI won't harm us?

Suppose a nuclear reactor is being installed in your city. Your friend has reviewed the design and has some serious concerns. Your friend thinks the reactor has a significant chance of melting down. You go to the director of the project. The director says: "Oh that's nothing to worry about. I talked to that guy. He didn't have a mathematical proof that the reactor would melt down." Are you reassured?

No, that's not how this work. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. You're just making speculative statements based on zero scientific evidence and a childish misunderstanding of the basic technology.

Did you read this post? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a...

It might require context you don't have. Perhaps try one of these intros: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T98kdFL5bxBWSiE3N/best-intro...

You've got to be kidding. Those are garbage articles containing unsupported, unscientific articles written by worthless grifters and alarmists.

The entire LessWrong site is mostly just random people making shit up while trying to seem smart. There may be some useful scraps there but overall it's not a site for serious people. You can do better.

Thats unreasonable as we all know its impossible to prove a negative, especially about a as yet hypothetical in a new feild of research.

As for a nuclear reactor in my city, yeah if my friend doesnt have qualifications to make him capable of evaluating the designs of such a technical and esoteric field and someone who is qualified assured me it was fine I would trust them. If we dont trust experts in their fields about their field then we are no better intellectually than the antivaxers and flatearthers