My main thoughts were already expressed by jimrandomh and dogiv, but I will add a minor point:
Even if we don’t consider the objections raised by jimrandomh and dogiv, naming this article Don’t Fear the Reaper: Refuting Bostrom’s Superintelligence Argument is hyperbole, since the article states (in section 5) that the argument made in the article is “not a decisive argument against the possibility of an intelligence explosion”.
Furthermore, the fact that the article recommends “regulators controlling the use of generic computing hardware and data storage” (again in section 5) suggests that the author recognizes that he has not refuted Bostrom’s argument.
My main thoughts were already expressed by jimrandomh and dogiv, but I will add a minor point:
Even if we don’t consider the objections raised by jimrandomh and dogiv, naming this article Don’t Fear the Reaper: Refuting Bostrom’s Superintelligence Argument is hyperbole, since the article states (in section 5) that the argument made in the article is “not a decisive argument against the possibility of an intelligence explosion”.
Furthermore, the fact that the article recommends “regulators controlling the use of generic computing hardware and data storage” (again in section 5) suggests that the author recognizes that he has not refuted Bostrom’s argument.