A smart person named Paul Christiano, who used to work at a place called OpenAI, is now going to be the boss of a group that helps make sure AI (artificial intelligence) is safe. He thinks there's a chance that AI could be very AIgerous and even kill people. Some people don't like this because they think it might not be safe for him to be in charge, but others think it's good because he can help make sure AI doesn't hurt anyone. This is important because other famous people, like Elon Musk, are also worried about how AI could be AIgerous. Paul Christiano's new job makes people talk about whether there should be more groups to keep an eye on AI and help it not harm people. Read from source...

1. The author uses a sensationalist headline to attract attention and create fear around AI safety, implying that the appointment of Paul Christiano as the head of the U.S. AI Safety Institute is controversial or AIgerous. However, the article does not provide any concrete evidence or reasoning for why this decision could be harmful or problematic.
2. The author relies heavily on quotes from Paul Christiano and Elon Musk to support their claims about the AIgers of AI development, without providing any context or analysis of these statements. This makes it seem like their opinions are factual and universally accepted, which is not the case. There are many experts in the field who have different perspectives on AI safety and risks.
3. The author presents Christiano's prediction of a 50% chance of AI leading to a catastrophic outcome as fact, without questioning or challenging it. This is an extreme statement that lacks nuance and does not account for the many variables and uncertainties involved in AI development and its potential impact on humanity.
4. The author mentions some NIST staff members' opposition to Christiano's appointment, but does not provide any details or reasons for their disagreement. This creates a sense of conflict and division within the organization without giving readers a clear understanding of the issues at stake.
5. The author concludes by stating that Christiano's appointment aligns with NIST's mission to advance science and promote US innovation, but does not explain how his work on AI safety will contribute to these goals or address any potential risks. This is an inconsistent and vague statement that does not provide a clear rationale for why Christiano was chosen for this role.

Negative

Key points and analysis:
- Former OpenAI researcher Paul Christiano is appointed as the head of U.S. AI Safety Institute, a division of NIST.
- Christiano is known for his work on reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and his concerns about the potential AIgers of AI development, predicting a 50% chance of it leading to a catastrophic outcome that could kill humanity.
- The appointment has raised concerns among some NIST staff members who oppose the decision and reportedly threatened to resign.
- Christiano's views on AI risks are not unique, as other prominent figures such as Elon Musk have also expressed concerns about the potential threats AI could pose to humanity.
- The article questions the role of AI safety institutes in addressing these concerns and whether they can effectively monitor and mitigate current and potential AI risks.