Yes, but in at least one of those cases (both cases?) the piece was recommended to him by a higher-up in the SIAI. So associating them with the SIAI in the weak sense that they reflect views connected to the Institute is not unreasonable. If that was the intended meaning, it is just very poor phrasing.
ETA: And regardless of those issues, that’s a reflection of problems with the author, not necessarily a claim that defends the SIAI from the particular criticism in question.
What might also be worrisome is that the two papers he seems to have read and associated with the SIAI are both not written by the SIAI.
Yes, but in at least one of those cases (both cases?) the piece was recommended to him by a higher-up in the SIAI. So associating them with the SIAI in the weak sense that they reflect views connected to the Institute is not unreasonable. If that was the intended meaning, it is just very poor phrasing.
ETA: And regardless of those issues, that’s a reflection of problems with the author, not necessarily a claim that defends the SIAI from the particular criticism in question.
I think that is not correct. You said:
However. the link was to:
http://singinst.org/upload/ai-resource-drives.pdf
...not...
http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/11/30/paper-on-the-basic-ai-drives/
The former is written by Carl Shulman—who seems to be being credited with 4 recent SIAI publications here.