In my view, Jensen Huang holds the most logical and plausible position regarding the question of a "slow-down." In an interview with Ezra Klein, he describes his stance as "responsible optimism."

He argues that AI can be enormously beneficial; manufacturers must address safety issues through testing, technical controls, and careful decision-making prior to release. If a company believes it cannot control its system, it should not release the product. At the same time, he dismisses warnings about the potential extinction of humanity as unfounded alarmism and opposes additional AI regulation.

I fully agree with this. I am by no means naive; I have tried to deeply understand the gravity of the "HF incident" - which effectively triggered this debate and I am well aware of its significance. Yet, I still find a lack of valid evidence in the debate to substantiate the recurring claim that there is a 10% risk of human extinction. Quite the opposite. As I have stated repeatedly, the benefits of AI for humanity - broadly speaking - are so immense that we should pursue optimistic acceleration. We should only consider a genuine "slow-down" if there are valid, evidence-based reasons demonstrating - in a truly compelling way why continuing on the current path would inevitably lead to our downfall. As far as I can see, however, such evidence has yet to be presented.

In this respect, I follow to the idea of ​​"responsible optimism" and moving forward toward AGI.