Well, we can predict more-or-less what will happen when a large meteorite hits earth, but we have no clue (other than sci-fi scenarios) for the nature of the threat AI poses, if only because we are so far away from understanding what AI is. We don&#x27;t know if intelligence can be separated from agency and agenda, we don&#x27;t know if intelligence can be separated from emotions, and we don&#x27;t even know if intelligence can even exceed our own (the argument for &quot;human intelligence at a higher speed&quot; fails on several grounds). Hell, we don&#x27;t even know what intelligence <i>is</i> (and the definition of &quot;a general ability to solve problem&quot; doesn&#x27;t work, as there are problems that what we generally regard as intelligence clearly cannot solve while other qualities do).<p>What&#x27;s the point of arguing about the potential threats something we have so little knowledge of? Maybe it will come too fast, but maybe that unkillable virus will, too. At this point in time, we simply have too little information to have an intelligent assessment of the risks posed by AI. We can and should, however, discuss the more immediate related dangers of our real-world machine learning, such as self-reinforcing bias.