> I've seen so much ridiculous hype about AI becoming godlike super-geniuses before the decade is out I’ve actually seen literally none of that from proponents

> I've seen so much ridiculous hype about AI becoming godlike super-geniuses before the decade is out I’ve actually seen literally none of that from proponents, like I’ve probably seen 100x as much strawmanning and uncharitable summary from opponents. Essentially nobody thinks we should hand the kingdom over to an unsupervised savior machine, like, can you show me a candidate from a major political party (doesn’t have to be US, but let’s say >10% electoral share) who supports such a platform? Or a ceo who supports moving leadership decisions for his company over to an AI? As far as I can tell, that whole thing is a strawman cut whole-cloth from the imaginations of detractors. I’d be delighted to hear counterexamples of the sort I discussed but I frankly don’t think they really exist outside some feverish imaginations. Everyone just got so busy pointing out that it’s not a good idea that they failed to notice that, in fact, nobody thinks it’s a good idea yet. And it’s a self-reinforcing cycle because obviously there are lot of other people who agree that it is not, in fact, a good idea, so they feel very supported and emboldened to point it out constantly, such that they’ve forgotten that nobody argues that in the first place. I’ll be the one to say it: it isn’t a good idea to grind down the mountains and fill in the oceans and pave over the entire earth’s surface to drive rocket-powered hypercars at unfathomable speeds. Was anyone serious actually proposing that? No, but really you’d have to be crazy to take that position, wouldn’t you? It would be super harmful if we let people just argue unhindered that we should do that. So really it’s a public service, right? Don’t let the crazies grab the wheel, vote against paving the earth.