The original article gets into this at the end. It's easy to get into a cyclic argument here, where you posit a tool that can do "anything" and then try to deri

The original article gets into this at the end. It's easy to get into a cyclic argument here, where you posit a tool that can do "anything" and then try to derive consequences from that. What we don't know is what its actual capabilities will be, or how transformative those will be. There's a prayer about knowing the difference between what you can do and what you can't, and setting aside the things you can't do to focus on what you can. To me, this seems like the right way to approach this.