Check this out: https://x.com/PessimistsArc

But we really aren't. We're still driven by irrational sentiments and fears. We hate AI because it's new and feels icky, and will bring change and we don't like change. We would prefer the 2020s to be frozen in time forever and ever (although we're more than happy to benefit from progress that happened before our time, which upended the lives of other people long dead).

So that's it, there's no argument. The only argument is "I hate AI because fuck it", which is much more sincere. I don't need to hear about water or electricity or cognitive decline or any other made up stuff that sounds intellectual.

Today we are much more enlightened and smart, and our convoluted arguments, that sound very smart and somehow reach the same conclusion that the technology must be stopped, are totally right. We're not opposed to AI due to irrational fear and NIMBYism, like those simpletons before.

Because it was invented after they were 35.

"1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

Do you really believe that they will magically be "immune"? Even adults are addicted to social media, and it didn't even exist back when they were teens.

I don't get the point of this. Any vulnerability that requires local access can be exploited if you first get remote code execution through another vulnerability. Also, exploiting the browser or the media player doesn't give you admin privileges, you need another privilege escalation exploit for that.

Exactly. The author writes as if OpenAI is the only company that does AI, where in fact many companies train AI models, many will do it in the future, and other countries will do it as well. Once LLMs have been invented you can't uninvent them.

I don't see any reason to accept this argument. The AI safety people should also prove their assertions, not expect us to take them at face value.

We'll deal with AI the same way humans dealt with any other technology: gradually, as it gets better and better, discovering at each step what it's capable of.

That's a big assumption to make. You can't assume that the rate of improvement will stay the same, especially over a period of 2 decades, which is a very long time. Every advance in technology hits diminishing returns at some point.