(1) I believe increasing AI capability is a net negative.
(2) AI capability is limited by AI safety in the way the power of a rifle is limited by how safe it is to use.
I.e., AI safety and AI capability look like two sides of a coin to me.
If I were disillusioned of this view I might consider it. But right now it just seems unethical and against my fundamental beliefs.
My understanding of "safety" is that it means formalising morality, ensuring AI doesn't go astray as it recursively improves it's self, destroying our future in some horrifying way possibly worse than death.
But merely making it safe to use still prevents unnecessary death. And advocacy against rifles in general, or general gun safety is a viable path to limiting the negative outcomes.
Rifles are banned in many places on Earth and they also backfire and misfire less than they used to.
Even so, you can do the simple "call your representative" and "hand out fliers" and "talk to people about how AI is net negative" with no cost to yourself and it absolutely aligns with your fundamental beliefs, right?