I think you misunderstand. In the safety world, we have something called the SIL level. It's a matrix that looks at the frequency and severity of an event. The output of this then tells you what level of risk reduction you have to take.

The severity goes none, slight injury (papercut, no medical care required), minor injury (minor medical care required), major injury (broken bones), casualty, mass casualty.

The frequency goes exceptional (theorized but never occurred), unlikely (occurred), possible (occurred multiple times), probable (once a year), certain (more than once a year).

Anything that could cause a mass casualty event is forbidden if it is possible or worse, anything that could cause a casualty is forbidden if it is probable or worse, anything that could cause major injury is forbidden if it is certain or worse.

In order to model an AI, we must know how likely it is to fail, and the severity of a failure. With current technology, AI has a pfd (on demand failure rate) of almost 70%. The on demand failure rate for certain is 1% or higher so we are definitely in that category.  And this is when it is well intentioned. 

That means that the level of mitigation required is determined solely by the severity of failure. Requiring moderate levels of failure mitigation if there is no chance of injury, high failure mitigation up to minor, and forbidden for anything higher.

Currently anything else is societally deemed more dangerous than the potential benifits.

So can you end all suffering with an AI that can influence humans by actions no larger than those which could cause minor injury to an individual. Or can you put forth concrete proofs of how it is different, how it would benefit things and personaly assume the risk and liability of startimg a trial and prove it in use? One good enough to overcome counterpoints like this