> The Baptists are naive ideologues, the Bootleggers are cynical operators, and so the result of reform movements like these is often that the Bootleggers get w

> The Baptists are naive ideologues, the Bootleggers are cynical operators, and so the result of reform movements like these is often that the Bootleggers get what they want – regulatory capture, insulation from competition, the formation of a cartel – and the Baptists are left wondering where their drive for social improvement went so wrong. While I appreciate the Baptist/bootlegger analogy, it's oversimplifying things to categorize anyone who has ever opposed a new technology as a "naive ideologue". Am I naive ideologue if I don't love the fact that I'm an unwilling participant in self-driving car testing done on public roads? Not everyone who opposes something is either naive or an opportunist. > AI is highly likely to be the control layer for everything in the world. How it is allowed to operate is going to matter perhaps more than anything else has ever mattered. You should be aware of how a small and isolated coterie of partisan social engineers are trying to determine that right now, under cover of the age-old claim that they are protecting you. In short, don't let the thought police suppress AI. I can't figure out how the last sentence fits here. Is the thought police trying to suppress AI, or allow it to flourish, within the parameters they set for it? Also, how is the rest of the article so optimistic about AI, when this section makes it seem like there's a decent chance that this elite coterie will shape "the control layer for everything in the world"? > AI Risk #4; Will AI Lead to Crippling Inequality? I was surprised he didn't discuss whether having a personal AI assistant would have a leveling effect (helping out those at the bottom achieve their maximum) or a disparity-increasing effect (amplifying the ability of the well-off to claim more wealth/opportunities for themselves). It seems like this is more important for understanding inequality than the Elon Musk example, which seems to conflate the "equality" that Musk creates by giving many people technologically advanced cars with the "inequality" that results from him becoming extremely wealthy in the process. When most people think about inequality, they're thinking about the latter, not the former.