The journal has issued an official editorial, I’ll just present the headline:

Stop talking about tomorrow’s AI doomsday when AI poses risks today

In the short article AGI risk concerns are dismissed pretty summarily, without engagement.  Then it is followed by plenty of the standard lameness, such as:

Further consultations about AI risks and regulations, such as the forthcoming UK summit, must invite a diverse list of attendees that includes researchers who study the harms of AI and representatives from communities that have been or are at particular risk of being harmed by the technology.

Sigh.  Not surprisingly, AGI Doomster Twitter is upset and disappointed, and for this I am on their side.  Please don’t be confused by the fact that many of the mainstream science types keep you “on board” for both clicks and because they enjoy a general negativism, which they then co-opt for their own agendas.  They are not on your side, not when push comes to shove, as indeed it did yesterday.

At the risk of being repetitive, I would like to shift into some real straight talk.  Many of you focused on AGI existential risk do not much like or agree with my criticisms of that position, or perhaps you do not understand my stance, as I have seen stated a few times on Twitter.  But I am telling you — I take you far more seriously than does most of the mainstream.  I keep on saying — publish, publish, peer review, peer review — a high mark of respect.  Can I say that again?  “Publish, publish, not on blogs, not long stacked arguments or six hour podcasts or tweet storms, no, rather peer review, peer review, peer review, and yes with models too.”

Obviously I am fine with plenty of non-peer review expository methods, but if you wish to convince your audience of one of the most radical conclusions of all time…well, more is needed than just a lot of vertically stacked arguments.  It will make your arguments better, if nothing else, and practically speaking there is no other way you will persuade a critical mass of scientists and intellectuals to accept your views.  And if you are right, you will change a lot of minds, whether or not you ultimately prevail.

As it stands, contra that earlier tweet from Rob Wiblin (does anyone have a cite?), you have utterly and completely lost the mainstream debate, whether you admit it or not, whether you see this or not.  (Given the large number of rationality community types who do not like to travel, it is no surprise this point is not better known internally.)  You have lost the debate within scientific communities, within policymaker circles, and in international diplomacy, if it is not too much of an oxymoron to call it that.

So get with it.  I hope this Nature piece is a wake-up call for you.  At the very least you could be elevating the quality of the debate, while they are pissing on it with their crummy, second-rate conformist rhetoric.  Time to step up to the plate!