Reaction I: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future"
Reaction II: When you say "A.I.", which of the following do you mean?
- Actual autonomous "SciFi" A.I., doing what it wants to do, because of it's own, not-human-derived motivations, to the detriment of humanity
- Supposed A.I. that is merely a techno-fig leaf for nasty sh*t that humans would be doing to each other anyway
- Hyped-to-the-stars A.I. that is sold as the great solution to a bunch of huge human problems...but that was 99% hype, so we're screwed when it doesn't really work
I briefly skimmed through the text, and it seems to cover only the anti-AI arguments and how some people agree and disagree. At the same time there seems to be no pro-AI arguments, like improving the efficiency of work, medical advancements and other useful things. Maybe that's what was meant with such a title but I would like the author to cover the whole picture next time
The study [1] doesn't say who the experts were, but a related paper [2] by the same authors states that the sample drew heavily from the Effective Altruism community.
I would be pretty skeptical of generalizing these results to a sample of people who aren't EA or EA-adjacent. That's a very specific type of a community/person with a lot of priors and methods of thought that are both highly specific and relatively uncommon outside of EA circles.
Reaction II: When you say "A.I.", which of the following do you mean?
- Actual autonomous "SciFi" A.I., doing what it wants to do, because of it's own, not-human-derived motivations, to the detriment of humanity
- Supposed A.I. that is merely a techno-fig leaf for nasty sh*t that humans would be doing to each other anyway
- Hyped-to-the-stars A.I. that is sold as the great solution to a bunch of huge human problems...but that was 99% hype, so we're screwed when it doesn't really work
- Other