The author hasn&#x27;t taken the time to read the arguments for AI risk. First, citing Kurzweil as a proponent of AI risk is very odd. Kurzweil thinks AI is the bees knees and doesn&#x27;t see much risk in it AFAICT. Second, neither Bostrom, MIRI, nor the Future of Life institute claim Moore&#x27;s law will continue indefinitely or in any way endorse Kurzweil&#x27;s work.<p>As for his other comments on AI risk, here&#x27;s what I wrote last year on a similar thread:<p>Nobody is afraid of today&#x27;s AI algorithms. But if we make machines that are smarter than us and have desires, they will influence the future to achieve their desires. If these desires conflict with our own, things will not end well for the dumber party.<p>As we really have no idea what we, collectively, think of as a moral terminal goal, and less so how to formalize this, there is no reason to expect the first AIs to have goals that correspond to what we want. If AIs self-replicate in a competitive ecology, what would be selected for would be agents millions of times more intelligent than us who use their intellects only to make more copies of themselves - using all available resources including those we need to survive.
I&#x27;d recommend this summary of the arguments: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@LyleCantor&#x2F;russell-bostrom-and-the-risk-of-ai-45f69c9ee204#.shqn6fqa4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@LyleCantor&#x2F;russell-bostrom-and-the-risk-...</a>