Part of what I’m saying is that it’s not respectable for someone to both
claim to have substantial reason to think that making non-lethal AGI is tractable, and also
not defend this position in public from strong technical critiques.
It sounds like you’re talking about non-experts. Fine, of course a non-expert will be generally less confident about conclusions in the field. I’m saying that there is a camp which is treated as expert in terms of funding, social cachet, regulatory influence, etc., but which is not expert in my sense of having a respectable position.
Part of what I’m saying is that it’s not respectable for someone to both
claim to have substantial reason to think that making non-lethal AGI is tractable, and also
not defend this position in public from strong technical critiques.
It sounds like you’re talking about non-experts. Fine, of course a non-expert will be generally less confident about conclusions in the field. I’m saying that there is a camp which is treated as expert in terms of funding, social cachet, regulatory influence, etc., but which is not expert in my sense of having a respectable position.