A bunch of straw-man arguments ("See they argued in support of the risks of something I don't care about or think is important, therefore there are no risks at all").
False motivations ("It's just OpenAI trying to capture the market"), while almost 70% of the people signing the letter don't work for OpenAI.
Absolutely absurd thoughts: "Do they want to be working on something capable of 'human extinction'?"
And from people who supposedly work in tech, but somehow are suddenly incapable of grasping the difference in scale of impact that automating something for extremely low cost has on society. "We always had these risks in society, so this is nothing new". Completely ignoring the difference in for example having to travel to to basement archives of every small town in the country to read through papers to research something vs having all of that information at the tips of your fingers.
I don't think I've ever read any set of responses on HN that I've been more disappointed in. And not necessarily because I disagree with them, but because of how little critical thought when into them.
I think there will be a time where we'll look back at comments like these in response to this concern as being absolutely painfully naive.