Tyler Cowan and Mark Andreessen have come out with posts whose arguments seem bizarrely poor. I am confident they both mean well and yet. And this to me is the flip side of Mark Andreessen's argument. They believe their arguments are bizarrely poor, but because they're too smart to make these bad arguments. But also, this is a failure to engage with the many very detailed arguments that we will give a eyes explicit goals to accomplish. These goals will logically necessarily involve being around to accomplish those goals.
The future of AI keeps Zvi Mowshowitz up at night. He also wonders why so many smart people seem to think that AI is more likely to save humanity than destroy it. Listen as Mowshowitz talks with EconTalk's Russ Roberts about the current state of AI, the pace of AI's development, and where--unless we take serious action--the technology is likely to end up (and that end is not pretty). They also discuss Mowshowitz's theory that the shallowness of the AI extinction-risk discourse results from the assumption that you have to be either pro-technological progress or against it.