There are better ways to make this criticism. The main problem I see with this is that it's basically a long ad hominem, followed by some valid concerns about market concentration at the end.
Remove all the ad hominem and what remains is two paragraphs long. Valid ones, though.
I am not a big fan of ad hominem in general, but when the argument essentially is "you should surrender control to these people over major parts of society/economy because they are better than you and if you don't everybody dies" then it's appropriate to ask who are those people that are supposed to be our philosopher-kings?
AI safety advocates do not typically demand to be given personal political power, only for a set of preferred policies to be enacted, like anyone advocating for any political cause.
The question is who will be enacting and controlling those policies. Somebody like METR? That's the people. And yes, every regulatory body has these dangers - but the amount of control demanded for this body is quite unusual - it's full veto right over the whole industry.
alexgieg · · focus · HN ↗
Remove all the ad hominem and what remains is two paragraphs long. Valid ones, though.
smsm42 · · focus · HN ↗
HedonicEscal8r · · focus · HN ↗
smsm42 · · focus · HN ↗