Yes, I agree, but the relevant debate isn't "pro vs anti-AI." That's a fight only one side can win.
The relevant debate is: "human empowerment vs disempowerment".
It's still a long-shot, but at least there's a specific target that a majority may be able to agree on.
(Not saying you were specifically saying either.)
That’s a fair framing. I like the idea that the two debates could be separated. Personally I find it hard to believe that a super intelligence would not completely disempower humans over any reasonable time frame (50 years), but you are right that there is a chance. There are some optimistic scenarios either way but the odds are indeed long. You can approximate things reasonably well by framing the priority as whether you think P(take off can be stopped) is higher than P(survival post take off).
I think his point is that “human empowerment vs disempowerment”, in the long term, is itself a fight that only one side can win.
I mean, fair—it's a possibility. But what are we to do with a point of view that admits no positive outcome?
I would guess that our near future includes mass suicide on an unprecedented scale. I have a spot picked out, at least.