Your core claim seems to be that the future of AI is impossible to predict for anyone, including Bostrom.  If that&#x27;s the case, it seems like that should inspire more caution, not less.<p>(There&#x27;s also some DH2 <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;disagree.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulgraham.com&#x2F;disagree.html</a> level stuff about the terms Bostrom chooses to use to make his argument... I&#x27;m not sure if there&#x27;s anything to be said about this except that Bostrom&#x27;s book seems more accessible to me than most academic writing <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stevenpinker.com&#x2F;why-academics-stink-writing" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stevenpinker.com&#x2F;why-academics-stink-writing</a> and I&#x27;d hate for him to receive flak for that.  It&#x27;s the ideas that matter, not the pomposity with which you communicate them.  I also don&#x27;t understand the implied disregard for anything that seems like science fiction--what&#x27;s the point in trying to speculate about the future if all the speculation will be ignored when decisions are being made?)<p>If an Oxford philosophy professor is not enough for you, here&#x27;s a succinct explanation of the AI safety problem &amp; its importance from Stuart Russell (Berkeley CS professor &amp; coauthor of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.berkeley.edu&#x2F;~russell&#x2F;research&#x2F;future&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.berkeley.edu&#x2F;~russell&#x2F;research&#x2F;future&#x2F;</a>