The article's underlying thesis seems to be summarized by

> The practitioners of AI are not up-front about the genuine allure of their enterprise, which is all about the old-school Steve-Jobsian charisma of denting the universe while becoming insanely great.

But that... doesn't seem true? Most modern AI practitioners, especially the prominent ones, profess that their work is going to change the world forever and that's why they want to do it. So I'm not sure what the author is really proposing that AI practitioners should do. Work on less important problems? Play it by ear instead of trying to develop moral principles preemptively?