Putting aside the question of what LLMs, specifically, are capable of, I feel the author's central argument has already been shown to be false, through events o

Putting aside the question of what LLMs, specifically, are capable of, I feel the author's central argument has already been shown to be false, through events outside of AI. In a nutshell, the argument is that, as AI will have just the knowledge that is available to us, expressed in the languages we use, we will be able to anticipate and put a stop to it doing anything catastrophic. Exactly the same argument, however, could be made over computer and communications security. If anything, those trying to keep things secure have the advantage in knowledge, at least initially, yet zero-day exploits keep surfacing, some of them at fundamental levels such as processor architecture. Nothing truly catastrophic has happened yet, but it cannot be said to be impossible. The flaw in the argument is that one can easily know all the bare facts without seeing all the implications but someone - or something - else could do so.