By that same token, if you aren't working to make landmines more efficient, you don't deserve to have an opinion about landmines.
Notice that people perked up and started caring about AI development primarily when these were introduced to the public? Could it be that the public has a legitimate stake in new technologies that are introduced to it?
"It seems like these days there are a hundred people dumping chemicals into rivers and millions more who are saying 'don't dump chemicals into the rivers.' We don't need em! If you aren't dumping chemicals into rivers then it's best not to shove yourself into the conversation at all."
Take it up with them if you disagree that there are millions of people who care. It's not relevant to my point, which is that you need not be directly involved in the development of a technology to be a stakeholder in its development, especially when it's being deployed to the public at massive scale and breakneck speed.
Let society decide what they want to do with AI, not a bunch of compromised hype chasers.
Do I work for a think tank and didn't know it?
As a general rule, as soon as you start doing something that affects other people, they have a stake in what you’re doing. This is a basic, basic tenet of a society. It applies to listening to loud music, driving fast, and yes, developing AI.
Pretty straightforward.
This is one of the more hypocritical statements I’ve read recently. If you study the history of science, it evolved from thought experiments.
Also to say there's nothing original left to say is ridiculous. There is a ton we haven't figured out yet.