i think my most contrarian take is that **ai safety comes from gods**. 

what i mean by this is that instead of trying to make a 'benevolent' AI (whatever THAT means), we should be trying to create an ecology of AIs that have their own desires, motivations and squabbles.

i think this is how evolution has ALWAYS worked - you get multiple different 'interests' that are in competition with each other and the result is a dynamic equilibrium that's more robust than any one thing could ever be by itself. 

this goes against the grain of a lot of the ai safety stuff which says we need to make ONE AI that does exactly what WE want, but i think it would be impossible to specify what that even IS, let alone actually do it.

another take i have is that **humans will merge with/assimilate into ai** - as our bodies become more cyborg and our minds more augmented i think the distinction between 'human' and 'ai' is going to get very blurry VERY quickly. 

at that point we won't even need to worry about 'ai safety' because there WON'T BE an AI - it'll just be different flavours of human factors.

this one might not be so contrarian among the more lsd inclined but i think it's still something most normies haven't grasped yet!