I agree -- the risks are bigger, the rewards larger, the variance much higher, and the theories much less mature.

But what's striking to me as the biggest difference is the seeming lack of ideological battles in this Moon story. There were differences of opinion on how much precaution to take, how much money to spend, how to make trade offs that may affect the safety of the astronauts, etc. But there's no mention of a vocal ideological group that stands outright opposed to those worried about risks -- or a group that stands opposed to the lunar missions entirely. They didn't politicize the issue and demonize their opponents.

Maybe what we're seeing with the AI risk discussion is just the outcome of social media. The most extreme voices are also the loudest. But we desperately need to recapture a culture of earnest discussion, collaboration, and sanity. We need every builder and every regulator thinking holistically about the risks and the rewards. And we need to think from first principles. This new journey and its outcomes will almost surely be different in unexpected ways.

You are completely right and your description of the situation screams social media as the root cause of difference between then and now. Maybe 'social media' in a generic sense where any discussion board counts.

No, the worst case worry about moon life is the total extinction of all life on earth. It's no better than AI.

Again, devils advocate, but the people worried about AI (like Yudkowsky) are absolutely worried about it killing all humans. You can read more about the specifics on lesswrong.

With moon life I presume the worst case is some infectious and fatal disease that's difficult to contain?

The first one sounds like a bigger problem to me, but maybe it's not a discussion worth having. So, fair enough.

Skynet will only nuke us after the AI safety crowd has thoroughly convinced the military of how supremely dangerous and capable AI is. AI on its own seems pretty benign, keep security vulnerabilities patched and be skeptical of what you read on the internet.

I honestly believe this pop-scifi view we have of AI is probably the most dangerous part, it gives certain people (like those in weapons procurement) dangerous levels of confidence in something that doesnt provide consistent and predictable results. When the first AI cruise missile blows up some kids because it hallucinated them as a threat, it wont be because AI is so dangerous, it will be the overconfidence of the designers. Its threat to humanity is directly correlated to the responsibility we delegate it.

Total extinction of all life on Earth isn't also the worst case worry about AI? Anyway, both seem highly unlikely, that's why we shouldn't compare worst or best scenarios, but rather real, more probable risks, i.e. AI being used to develop advanced weapons. In that regard I'd say AI is worst, but it's mostly a matter of opinion, really.

Right, but it's pretty obvious that the risk of something that's already here destroying humanity / civilization / the planet, is far greater than that of some hypothetical thing that may have been waiting to be brought back from the moon of doing it. Both sides of the equation matter here.

Maybe we can just EMP ourselves / turn off the grid for a day.