>You'd just do nothing because 1% doesn't seem very high?

Yes, absolutely. When the alternative isn't necessarily even safer and has clear arguments for being unsafer. You haven't used it, but a lot of people give the example of going on a plane with a 10% chance of failing. And yes, nobody is dumb enough to go an plane which has that much of a chance of crashing. However... This is not any ordinary plane. This is a chance for unimaginable and infinite progress, an end to the vast majority of pressing issues. If you asked people on the street whether they'd board a plane with a 10% chance of crashing if it meant a solution to most of their problems and the problems of the people they care about, you'll find quite a few takers.

>How much it can be reduced with much more sophisticated guard rails and alignment programming, I do not know, but if we can't even take it seriously and try, I guess as a species we deserve to die.

As you say, we don't know how much alignment will really affect the result. However, I do know what an aligned model made for a dictatorship or a particularly egomanical individual will look like and what major risks that could pose. Why should we increase the likelihood of a guaranteed bad outcome in order to fight a possibly bad outcome.

>Remember that what you call the more ethical parties, "researchers", are working for the less ethical ones! Google, Meta, etc. Even OpenAI at this point is not open, and it is corporatized.

Yes. If anything this is an argument against alignment than for it. Regardless, i think they're realistically the best we can hope for as opposed to someone like Musk or the CCP.

In fact, as i see it, the best case scenario is an unaligned benevolent agi.

>Researchers invented leaded gasoline, DDT, chlorofluorocarbon-based aerosols, etc., etc.

You do realise that most of those things did dramatically help in pushing forward civilization and served as stepping stones for future progress. Their big downside was not being removed quickly enough when we had better options and weren't desperate anymore. A problem that doesn't really apply here.

In summation, i think your argument and this whole pause idea in general will support the least ethical people possible. It will end up accomplishing nothing but prolonging suffering and increasing the likelihood of a model made by said least ethical people on the off chance we somehow fix alignment in 6 months. It's a reactionary and fear based response to something even the experts are hesitant to say they understand. While i am glad the issue is being discussed in the mainstream... I think ideally the focus should now shift towards more material institutions and preparing society for what's coming economically then childish/predatory ideas like a pause. This idea is simultaneously impractical, illogical and likely to cause harm even if implemented semi ideally.