Or something we can't even imagine right now. Every time we make a new vaccine, we're reaching into an urn, and there is a chance that it will accidentally code for prions and kill everyone 15 years later.

'We don't know if the next vaccine can result in human extinction. Yes, we don't know if this is even possible, but we're thinking a lot of new thoughts now adays. Every time we think a new thought, we're reaching into an urn, and there is a chance that it will become both lethal and contagious. 'We don't know if SCP-tier infohazards can result in human extinction. It's like Pascal's Mugging, but with unknown unknowns, which evades statistical analysis by definition. It can be generalized into fairly absurd conclusions. However his point about the weirdness of bay area rationalists is true, though not especially new. I don't think Thiel would be capable of recognizing the End of The World as such 5 years before it happens. He also unfortunately doesn't offer much against Elizer's 'Death With Dignity' post, no specific technical counterarguments, just some sneering and 'Can you believe these guys?' stuff. Thiel implicitly agrees with this frame, it's just that he thinks the cure worse than the disease, he doesn't offer some third option or argue that science is less dangerous than Bostrom believes. Either we risk death from cancer, or we risk death from chemotherapy. Thiel's argument against Bostrom's Vulnerable World Hypothesis is basically 'Well, Science might cause bad things, but totalitarianism might cause even worse stuff!', which, sure, but Bostrom's whole point is that we seem to be confronted with a choice between two very undesirable outcomes: either technology kills us or we become totalitarian.

Peter thiel 0 to 1 pdf