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.
I’m trying really hard to avoid the snark.
History provides ample examples and reasons to be deeply suspicious of movements that presented themselves as merely pursuing a program or cause - but that in practice turned out to be about control of political office
alexgieg · · focus · HN ↗
Remove all the ad hominem and what remains is two paragraphs long. Valid ones, though.
smsm42 · · focus · HN ↗
HedonicEscal8r · · focus · HN ↗
theopsimist · · focus · HN ↗