Read the piece on persuasion.community ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsI have become much more skeptical of the accelerationist narrative, and more open to some of the doomer scenarios. On the whole, this makes me think that regulation and a negotiated slowdown in the development of the technology is increasingly necessary.
Their wordsThe fundamental reason I don’t believe these extreme accelerationist claims is their overvaluation of intelligence as an input to economic growth, and their disregard for the material and political constraints that will keep growth within recognizable bounds.
Their wordsThis lost labor simply cannot be compensated for by transferring money from the AI winners to the AI losers, in the form of, for example, universal basic income. A job and income mean much more than support for the material basis of life.
Their wordsIn my view, the chief danger lies not in superintelligence per se, but rather in the growing use of increasingly capable agentic AI.
Their wordsThese speculations are misplaced, however: an AI does not need either consciousness or autonomous intentionality to become dangerous.
Their wordsStill, the doomer scenarios involving human extinction seem at this point very far-fetched.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.