It’s sort of notable, but not really, no. The list of things that might kill all humans is pretty long, and most of them have a currently extant, non-theoretical path to kill us all.

Nukes could kill us all, unhinged people have access to them. Global warming appears inevitable, and we’re trending towards “world ending”. I don’t recall how many dinosaur killer asteroids have a path whose margin of error includes hitting Earth. We’re about due for a “fry all the electronics on earth” solar flare by probability. Microplastics seem okay-ish so far, but they’re in the whole food chain. If they somehow end up causing sterility at certain concentrations, we might kill our whole food chain.

No, it’s not that notable that some technology could theoretically, one day, in ways we don’t currently understand, kill us all. That’s been basically a constant since rhetoric Industrial Revolution and our ability to blanket the earth in a particular thing.

Pretty much anything can kill humans if you use enough of it, including water and oxygen. If you want to make a coherent argument for regulating AI then be more specific instead of just raising vague concerns over "potential".

> So, something with the potential to kill all humans isn’t notable to you?

That would be bioweapons. Nobody's worried about them, regulations and treaties are conveniently and totally dysfunctional. Welcome to the real world.

> something with the potential to kill all humans

[citation needed]

He's giving Canada another industry to subsidize besides dairy?