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/

BTW I agree with the positive part of his AI vision. I just don't think he's been able to refute the anti-AI arguments.

^ compare it to OpenAI's take

https://openai.com/blog/governance-of-superintelligence

I understand where he's coming from. On the other hand OpenAI is also balls deep into AI but they propose a more nuanced POV 

https://openai.com/blog/governance-of-superintelligence

I mean, a16z has billions backing AI by now. This is just marketing. It does read like a college junior's Computer Ethics class essay but if it gets a few converts, pretty low effort way to lobby for the startups he's backing

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

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

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.

"because it's not alive"

Makes me wonder what pmarca's definition of "alive" is.