I would be careful not to implicitly claim that these 17 people are a “representative sample” of the AI safety community.
Worth noting that this is directly addressed in the post:
The sample of people I interviewed is not necessarily a representative sample of the AI safety movement as a whole. The sample was pseudo-randomly selected, optimizing for a) diversity of opinion, b) diversity of background, c) seniority, and d) who I could easily track down. Noticeably, there is an absence of individuals from MIRI, a historically influential AI safety organization, or those who subscribe to similar views. I approached some MIRI team members but no one was available for an interview. This is especially problematic since many respondents criticized MIRI for various reasons, and I didn’t get much of a chance to integrate MIRI’s side of the story into the project.
So, in this case, I would say this is explicitly disclaimed let alone implicitly claimed.
Worth noting that this is directly addressed in the post:
So, in this case, I would say this is explicitly disclaimed let alone implicitly claimed.