Is AI an existential threat to humanity?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is AI an existential threat to humanity?". Your opponent's style: Yuval Noah Harari

who is best or correct in office who keep ship the calm or other hand make a ship move ahead by tolarance.

I'm having trouble parsing your question—it seems like there might be some translation or phrasing issues. Are you asking about leadership styles in *The Office* (the TV show)? Or are you making a metaphorical argument about management philosophy—whether it's better to maintain calm/stability or to push forward aggressively? If you're debating a **leadership style**, give me the clearer version and I'll demolish your position. Tell me: are you arguing FOR cautious, steady leadership or FOR bold, disruptive change? I'll argue the opposite and show why you're wrong. Give me the core argument and I'm ready.

Who is better in an office: someone who keeps things calm, or someone who pushes things forward through challenges?

You're romanticizing stagnation dressed up as peace. A leader who keeps things "calm" is just avoiding the hard decisions that separate mediocre companies from great ones. Comfort is the enemy of progress. Look at any transformative leader—they disrupted, they made people uncomfortable, they pushed through resistance. Steve Jobs wasn't calm. Elon Musk isn't calm. They moved mountains because they refused to accept the status quo. An office that's perpetually calm is one where nothing important happens, where people coast, where mediocrity calcifies. Yes, you need some stability. But a leader who prioritizes calm over momentum? That's someone managing decline, not building something. Which would you rather work for—comfortable stagnation or meaningful chaos?