"Fragile and limited" does not mean safe. It is a strange idea that AI would need to be any of robust, general or complete to be risky. If anything, the main ta

"Fragile and limited" does not mean safe. It is a strange idea that AI would need to be any of robust, general or complete to be risky. If anything, the main take-away from today's AI is that many problems that previously looked hard turned out to be solvable at superhuman levels with such unsophisticated machinery. This realisation should be extrapolated. The call for regulation also need not be specific to be useful, though I suspect it would help. The greatest hurdle with AI risk is getting acceptance that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with ahead-of-time. Even if Elon does nothing but improve awareness, he has been useful. Self-driving cars are actually the least in need of extra regulation. They are already regulated, their effects are observable, there is market pressure for them to perform along lines beneficial to humanity, there is little to no incentive to extend their AI to anything more general, etc. My expectation is that the AI that is most dangerous is the AI developed behind closed doors for purely private interests on broad domains. I personally dislike the paperclip maximizer analogy; although it serves as a meaningful explanation of the AI alignment problem, people take the literal meaning too seriously, and the absurdity of it discredits the actual risk.