> Unfortunately, many of your assertions are inaccurate.

Even more unfortunately, the overarching point, the wood you're not seeing for that group of trees you're dabbling with, totally stands.

> But the only way they will is under the direction of humans. It it not the machine you should fear, but the man behind it. The same thing you ought to have been fearing all along.

Yes, and? That means until we dealt with that, we're just helping others to own the technology that will ultimately allow them to kick away the ladder for good. Yes, technology is neutral, but the human world is as it is now, and how technology could be used in a completely different human world is used as an excuse too. damn. much.

> I worry your comments veer a bit towards fear-mongering.

You'll love this then:

> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

-- Stephen Hawking, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama...

You will find many serious thinkers with similar concerns, and they're not fear mongering, they're throwing pearls to pigs. And people get super squeamish as soon as any possible consequences are spelt out in detail, and by the time it hits one one is too busy drowning, and if one has spare resources to speak nobody would listen to the "obviously jealous" loser. "Inequality" is a neutral word, but it contains all atrocities of humanity. Whenever someone crushed a baby, robbed an old woman, or murdered millions of people, there was an inequality, one was helpless and without someone to be for them, the other was stronger and without someone to stop them. That's what inequality means, that bad shit happens.

Sure, meaning is subjective. Yeah, it's subjective. So is morals. Essentially, who is to decide whether Stalin or Hitler were monsters, since they were fine and dandy in their own eyes? You seem to claim that fear mongering and ignorance are bad, isn't that also a subjective assessment?

> AI is, and for the time being will remain, an extension of the human mind.

Later on you talk about individual humans doing specific things. That's something real, "an extension of the human mind" is just rhetoric.

> Please provide sources to validate your claims on the progress of AI. Extrapolation from data is dangerous, extrapolation from falsity is ignorance.

Do you have any data on hard, mathematically proven safeguards? Or hey, prove that humanity cannot survive without AI (or actually, just without slowing some things while we sort out the power problems); but don't ask me to prove that humanity might die with it developed as it is with the current distribution of power first.

> Openai is pursuing this goal and making efforts to ensure that this tool is available to as many people as possible to avoid the abuses implicit to your concerns.

Ensure. Oh that's such a relief that these guys are making sure nothing bad can happen. No wait I misread, they're only ensuring to make it available to as many as possible, which is caveat number one, and even that with the intention of avoiding horrible abuses. That, without further qualifications or evidence, is about as convincing as me singing a song with the intention of turning the sky green with it.

I for one am not afraid, that's just wishful thinking. Try disgusted and bored.