I'm not personally on the Eliezer end of being an AI hawk, but I dislike the type of arguments Hanson uses here and find them boring & shallow. Humanity has a l

I'm not personally on the Eliezer end of being an AI hawk, but I dislike the type of arguments Hanson uses here and find them boring & shallow. Humanity has a long history of inventing & then subsequently regulating very dangerous things- nuclear weapons, explosives in general, military-grade rifles (well more in other countries....), a vast array of narcotics (the morphine/opium/heroin/opioids/fentanyl family, the meth/amphetamine family, etc.), thalomide, antibiotics.... Boring things we don't think about are regulated for safety (automobiles, stoves, building construction, bridges, phone chargers, knives, bedframes, toasters). I mean there are safety regulations & strict requirements around, I don't know, leasing a crane? An 18-wheeler truck? Why would it be reasonable to regulate cranes and trucks but not AI? Anyways I think it's uncharitable on Hanson's part (and numerous others online) to just call people with reasonable AI concerns Luddites. Sometimes they try to present their argument as being historically savvy ("people were afraid of the radio and video games when they came out!"), but a historical look at Dangerous Things Humanity Invented sure shows a lot of safety regulation too. I think that's just as reasonable a historical frame to view this new field