This article's point of view is a contagion that lacks an understanding of the core threat to humanity and our collective future that these models actually pose

This article's point of view is a contagion that lacks an understanding of the core threat to humanity and our collective future that these models actually pose. We don't even need to get into AI doomsdays predictions. Just look at what has happened every single time the economic cycle stalls in history. Economies runs in a loop. Workers get paid so they can buy goods. Employers pay workers so they can create goods to sell. Some of those goods are food. What happens when workers can no longer buy goods (food) because 2/3 of the jobs are no longer offered, and you have to have high IQ and education for the final 1/3 left? What happens anytime there is a shortfall in a countries food security needs, historically? The greatest incentive of these models drives the loss of jobs, the economic cycle slows as a result, and wealth inequality increases until it stalls completely and our existing systems that allow us to feed half the planet break down. It is a slow but cascading failure like a dam. This outcome is what the incentives from these models are driving us towards. The actions the author promotes neglect historical evidence of how new technologies have been used when they were freely available to the masses. These models effectively are a potentially infinitely scaled 'will' multiplier on any person using them, while they may be of limited use now; everything improves over time. These models are the same as a gun but on a much grander scale. There are extreme, disenfranchised and very bad people out there which the author minimizes and discount under personal responsibility (their choice). Not everyone is mature enough to ethically or responsibly use things, especially when the potentially destructive ends are so far reaching.