> Anyway I hope it’s abundantly clear that the argument at this point in the thread is not... I'm not sure why that would be clear at all. The point of my top

> Anyway I hope it’s abundantly clear that the argument at this point in the thread is not... I'm not sure why that would be clear at all. The point of my top level comment was that it's difficult to engage with many people about this subject exactly because they rely on "the canaries were wrong..." and "we've survived before" arguments, which were the subject of the article we're all discussing. I don't even think the doomsday narrative is the interesting or particular relevant one when it comes to examining risk. If all we did was focus on the implications of the tech in its current form and the risks/issues the current iteration already presents, we'd have enough issues to chew on for years ranging from fair use, to copyright, worker's rights, deepfakes, the explosion of misinformation, etc. etc. These are real issues that exist right now, have no solutions, and all threaten various aspects of the fabric of society and our legal system. I also suspect there are workable solutions to many of these problems, but as of now, they're mostly unsolved and I understand why some people are deeply uncomfortable with continuing to charge forward. Most technology revolutions don't happy as quickly as what we're seeing with AI, and it's the rate of change that is also spurring on quite a bit of concern. > It’s that the burden of proof falls on the doomsayers to convince humanity that... I don't think this is a useful way to frame the issue. Ideally, all parties involved in advancing this tech are engaged in an ongoing conversation/debate about what is or is not a valid concern, and how to address those concerns. Optimists need to be steel-manning the concerns, and pessimists need to be steel-manning the rosy outlook. Everyone involved needs to discard fallacious forms of argument whenever it can be identified. Framing this as "doomers vs. humanity" polarizes an issue that need not be polarizing. Whether you're a doomer or optimist, there exists underneath all of this the reality of the situation, and it's in the best interest of all involved parties to work towards understanding that reality together, whatever it is. What I think we can say confidently is that the form of argument called out in the article does not move anyone closer to that understanding.