- Considering whether doomers and skeptics about AI are both a little bit right (I remain agnostic);
- What ‘misalignment’ means;
- Istvan Csicsery-Ronay on what to expect if AI is built on human literature.
It’s usually not true that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two competing claims. If mathematics says 2+2=4 and that infamous pastor who said something like ‘If the Bible said 2=2=5, I would believe it’ says differently, the truth is not that 2+2=4 1/2. Some things are just wrong, e.g. most religious claims that challenge scientific conclusions about the objective reality of the world. Philosophy, and politics, moves forward as they are driven by such unresolved claims. So here’s an issue I haven’t staked a claim yet to either side.
![]()
The Atlantic, Charlie Warzel, today: Treat AI Like a Normal Crisis, subtitled “What if the doomers and skeptics are both a little bit right?” [gift link]











