This debate was produced in partnership with the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, as part of The Hopkins Forum series.
Yale guy sounds like sour grapes. Not a good debater. He picked John Jumper example but conveniently forgot David Baker who shared Nobel prize. Nobody touched burden of knowledge argument. AI as an enabler of scientific innovation is not covered at all.
I was very disappointed in the lack of difference between both sides. I felt like neither side was calling for ANY risk-adversion at all. Both sides seemed to be cheering on science full speed ahead! No one was considering the flood of chemicals, plastics, PFAS, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, artifical ingredients, greenhouse gasses, data centers, AI agents, and so many other negative consequences of science in an unrestrained capitalist system. It was all science is all good, and that's just not true! Nuclear warheads are made by science, and they're not good! We need to advert the risk of nuclear warfare, right?!?!
Yale guy sounds like sour grapes. Not a good debater. He picked John Jumper example but conveniently forgot David Baker who shared Nobel prize. Nobody touched burden of knowledge argument. AI as an enabler of scientific innovation is not covered at all.
I was very disappointed in the lack of difference between both sides. I felt like neither side was calling for ANY risk-adversion at all. Both sides seemed to be cheering on science full speed ahead! No one was considering the flood of chemicals, plastics, PFAS, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, artifical ingredients, greenhouse gasses, data centers, AI agents, and so many other negative consequences of science in an unrestrained capitalist system. It was all science is all good, and that's just not true! Nuclear warheads are made by science, and they're not good! We need to advert the risk of nuclear warfare, right?!?!