Sure, if you really mean people whose title and entire background is "AI ethicists" there are certainly lots of grifters (not "all" of them as you claim). It's

Sure, if you really mean people whose title and entire background is "AI ethicists" there are certainly lots of grifters (not "all" of them as you claim). It's to everyone's advantage, however, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 2) No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm observing in actual reality unexpected and unintended results with every single release. That is clear evidence that they do not have a complete grasp on what they're building, which doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be stopped, but it does mean we can't be asleep at the wheel and just assuming "technology makes everything better." 6) I didn't say LLMs are cataclysmic, but they have made evident a few things. First, that we aren't great at predicting emergent capabilities. Second, that builders of these technologies will be deploying them to the public en masse before they're well understood and indeed connect these technologies to vital systems with real-world impact. Third, that capitalist incentives will almost certainly override other concerns. These are good reasons to be worried about the path of development of AI overall. They indicate that the system (technological capitalism) around the systems (the technologies themselves) are going to struggle to really steer its development in a deliberate fashion. Competitive market incentives will steer the ship, and we have no reason to believe that'll change between here and AGI.