Yes. Many.

> I've talked with several people and their arguments are a lot more sophisticated than an intuition that ML models would have human motivations.

I don't have to think much about refuting this. Sure, okay, sophistication. Or not. Whatever. The sophistication is still mostly philosophical. To wit:

> I wonder if you also believe that post is just a wasteful collection of philosophy anthropomorphizing misunderstood ML models.

Yes, it's mostly philosophy and not of much use for understanding how engineered systems behave. I design ML systems and think about their safety. Even in the limit, where ML sysetems do some non-trivial set of human-like tasks (which we aren't even remotely close to yet, btw), how is this essay supposed to be useful to me when I design safety analyses?

I liken it to Software Architects who address software security by talking about Christopher Alexander instead of, y'know, building languages that obviate buffer overflows or establishing frameworks/code practices that make injection attacks less common.