>Task a squirrel with justifying the risk of a fox, but from the biomolecular level. That is the level of the task you are setting out.

Thats a really deep thought for a 12 year old.

>There can be arms-races in domains that are unfathomable to the participants.

You cant even justify LLMs as being unfathomable. Oh watch out I am fathoming them. You cant stop me fathoming all over the place.

>A small mammal will die a billion times over before it understands the evolutionary mechanisms and the genetic playing field on which it loses.Actors are not necessarily privy to understand the means by which they will lose, and humans have only existed in a small window of time in which we fashioned a manicured garden, in which that full understanding was briefly possible. It is not favoured in the universe for us to fully understand our environment imho

Non Sequitur. One that sounds like it was made up for that "What the Bleep" garbage.

>If the risk must be exhaustively detailed before it is given credence, we are already doomed, and deservedly so

The risk needs to be justified as something more substantial than weird people writing wannabe edgy messages on the internet. If someone on the internet told you that we need to drastically reverse living standards because there's a risk that modern technology will summon King Kong any reasonable person would ask for the working out instead of running for a cave.