There has been, over the last week, what I think is a healthy debate about the philosophy and psychology that undergirds the views of meaningful segments of the AI community, particularly those obsessed with doomsday scenarios. It is, in the end, difficult to reason with a philosophy that grants equivalent moral weight to not just all beings — human or not — who exist today, but who may ever exist in the future; this tilts the scales in such an absurd fashion towards safetyism that innovation is impossible and freedom is intolerable. Worse, it taps into the psychology of religion, where dissent is not brooked and questioning the premise is heresy. I guess that makes me a heretic then: I reject the premise in favor of doubt in our ability to foresee the future, combined with faith in humanity figuring things out along the way. If that leads to the most fantastical doomsday scenario, then I think the State of New Hampshire said it best:

Full opinion : Pacing the frontier may be sincere, but it would also be strategically useful for frontier AI labs to have time to reduce overhangs caused by model advancement.