If the old arguments were sound, why would researchers shift their arguments in order to make the case that AI posed a risk?
I get the sense that a lot of it is different people writing about it rather than people changing their minds.
This makes sense. However, I’d still point out that this is evidence that the arguments weren’t convincing, since otherwise they would have used the same arguments, even though they are different people.
I get the sense that a lot of it is different people writing about it rather than people changing their minds.
This makes sense. However, I’d still point out that this is evidence that the arguments weren’t convincing, since otherwise they would have used the same arguments, even though they are different people.