After reading the NYT interview, I don’t understand why he still chose to invent, in his words, a dangerous technology and publish the results openly. Not a criticism of the man, but of the article.
I have this same question about the (apparently many) AI researchers who believe it poses significant risks to humanity, yet still push forward developing it as fast as they can.
Here's my theory: if you look at surveys, it does say a 10% chance or so of an extremely bad outcome.
BUT it says a ~20% chance of an extremely good outcome, and an 80% chance of at least a neutral one.
Simple cost benefit analysis.