The Scott Alexander v. Steven Pinker AI debate

I saw this going viral: “An Open Letter to Scott Alexander,” by Steven Pinker He writes: I stand by my claim that most of the doomer scenarios are preposterous (beginning with the AI paperclip maximiser that consumes our bodies as raw materials). But as rationalists we should agree that attacking an idea should not be confused with attacking a person. I broadly agree with Pinker, even if he does not adequately address the latest literature. He’s still focused on the paperclip maximizer hypothetical, but AI risk has progressed a lot since then. But I agree the “doomers” or “safetyists” have not articulated their case well. They have not adequately explained the steps or conditions that have to transpire for AI “break containment”, and have also dismissed the obvious objection, instead invoking hypotheticals or dodging the question. The argument goes, “A sufficiently advanced intelligence cannot be predicted and will always be ahead of humans, anticipating and adapting accordingly.” But…