> If they've tricked smart people into going along with their shenanigans, it was by making clear technical arguments for why AGI is an existential risk. To me

> If they've tricked smart people into going along with their shenanigans, it was by making clear technical arguments for why AGI is an existential risk. To me it doesn't feel technical at all--just superficial use of some domain verbiage with lots of degrees of freedom to duct tape it all together into a story. He very much reminds me of Eric Drexler and the nanotech doomerism of the 80s and 90s. Guy also had all the right verbiage and a small following of fairly educated people. But where is the grey goo? If we need a counterargument to Yudkowsky do we also need one to Drexler?