An extremely observant existentialist-idealist caught up in the tech world and its intelligence-vs-humanity theorist ideas. Poor guy. This happens a lot and we

An extremely observant existentialist-idealist caught up in the tech world and its intelligence-vs-humanity theorist ideas. Poor guy. This happens a lot and we get some really amazing things from such gifted thinkers, for example Larry Wall's literary thinking about code. But I can also see where the annoyance comes from. AI theorizing requires huge leaps of intuition which can immediately supersede the existential in one's own mind, because you're thinking 200 or 2000 steps ahead, seeing the crises, seeing the opportunities, and pretty soon you have a level of convergent certainty which is hard to explain step by step, because you yourself don't really think in that step by step way, but rather in leaps. But Maciej _does_ need to think that way, especially regarding far-future concepts. And now you the AI-guy have both the burden of certainty and the energy to try to prioritize group attentions toward things you can see, that Maciej can't. IMO it's an important difference in psychology. And Maciej makes Maciej-like points: Don't sacrifice current generations' humanity for progress toward a "better" or "saved" future, when there are in fact many possible outcomes (this is key--divergence where others see convergence), and a pressing need to act on identified, easily-sensed problems, right now. The question I have is, how much of this concern on Maciej's part is "wooly" extrapolation or the same kind that Maciej is complaining about? Much of what I just read also makes intuitive leaps, albeit of a different mindset. They are leaps of human judgment, leaps to fear the nature of those who "feel" inhumane. This is where I wonder if some more nuance and back-and-forth communication would be more helpful than a presentation.