My read is that the author doesn't think today's tools are particularly close to AGI that has its own motives, or that it's at all useful to characterize these

My read is that the author doesn't think today's tools are particularly close to AGI that has its own motives, or that it's at all useful to characterize these tools as "having motives" at all. There are those who disagree with how close we are to "AGI" with today's LLMs, but as an outsider, the author seems pretty well-qualified in his position at MS Research compared to some of the less-informed prognosticators. Even the linked-out discussion with Altman, who the author says is more pessimistic than he is, doesn't appear to be a case of Altman saying these models are close to AGI or dangerous for "alignment" reasons vs "they can be used for bad things." Worrying about the uses of tools is a VERY different thing than worrying about if the tools are gonna overthrow us, and I think that's what the author is really pushing for here. If we have that conversation we can get closer to real, specific policies, laws, etc to make sure the tools benefit us instead of the other way around.