Consider these two sentences:
Some people believe that robots are a potential risk to humans.
Some people believe that robots are a potential source of risk to humans.
Are they both grammatically correct? Do they mean the same thing? Is one better than the other for some reason?
(I'm really unsure about it, so if there is another way to express it, please let me know)
Best Answer
Grammatically both are correct
In terms of meaning, they are equivalent in the sentences you gave as examples: because the "risk" is unspecified and is assumed to be directly related to the robot.
Compare that to a more detailed sentence which specifies the nature of the risk, and you can start to see where the usage separates.
In the former the robots are the risk, they are increasing the risk by their existence, not their actions: the risk is that someone will come to harm due to a robot.
In the latter, it is the potential actions of robots which cause the danger, or something which changes as a result of their existence. They are the source of the risk, but are not by definition the risk themselves: the risk is that something will happen and robots will rise up against us, not that robots will automatically be a risk.
Basically, compare whether the subject is the risk, or whether the subject causes the risk, directly or indirectly. In many cases, it does both: an Oil tanker is a potential collision hazard, and a potential source of an oil spill, hence we could use either sentence about an oil tanker.