I don’t think a simple “actually, no” is a useful counter argument to his point, especially when he used multiple examples and you just shook your head.
> I hate being disingenuous and make a flippant argument here, but reading this from start to finish makes me ask a bad faith question - your assertion is that we won't have self driving cars because we can't tell the robots what to do with the whole civilisation right away?
That’s not at all his specific argument about self-driving cars (there were entire sections about the decision making issues he saw), but is the crux of his argument about AI as a whole.
> There's a whole spectrum of amazing (or terrible) possibilities between the extremes, my guy.
And there’s a whole article discussing some of those, if you read the parts in the middle. I don’t think the dude’s necessarily right, but I’m also pretty sure you missed a lot of the text in an apparent race to summarily dismiss it.