I read this pmarca essay and apart from saying "people been scared of tech for ages", "it's hard to measure the problem" and the quote below he doesn't really address AI doomers arguments.

I like his essays but got deeply disappointed with this one.

https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-will-save-the-world

Building @kiwi 
Writing @ https://kanfa.macbudkowski.com/

imho the main X-risk was sufficiently addressed, but the one thing that stuck out to me was the glossing over of "productivity != local compensation". don't think the essay confronted the imperative to maintain a domestic consumer base of physical goods/services over the global nonscarcity of productive software.

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

Which argument do you think addressed the X-Risk properly? Maybe I missed something

all of AI Risk #1 & reference to criminal behavior at the end was sufficient. just because one force multiplier exists does not mean that the underlying risk is unlikely to occur. bio/misinfo/robo all rely on human commission of that "attack", all preexistant w/o multiplier. and PGP = munition is invalidated already.

I think these are decent argument but for me the central question is: "How do you control something that's 100X smarter than you?". I haven't found an answer to that.

it hasn't been deployed as 100x INT w/o HITL design. autonomous LLM hasn't demonstrated 100x INT. and we should be focused on 100x efficiency for sum of several billion online user's INT. 

control is wicked easy when the interface & mass consensus are one and the same. who's throwing a datacenter at a monolith?

put differently, "how do you control an opaque agency/corporation that's 100x more funded & methodical than the public?" is a real and immediate concern.

"how does a public control a network?" is the experimental process of crypto, and most of the success if heuristic, not theoretical.

I don't see the real end-game, most of the results are at the ground floor, in the hands of engineers stumped by JSON and memory bugs.
100X INT is soonest and likeliest from public market, so really the question of AI risk is "which misanthropic firm offers the most incentive for consumption?", not the inflection point

Ofc it hasn't but that's the end-game. 

If you want to augment people's intelligence, you want to add as much as you can. If you don't, your competitor will do it and get you out of business. That's how incentives are designed.