AI Researchers On AI Risk

Definitive rebuttal to the media trope that 'real AI experts dismiss AI risk.' Against cherry-picked-skeptic articles, Scott documents a counter-list of prestigious AI researchers who take AI risk seriously (Stuart Russell, McAllester, Moravec, Shane Legg/DeepMind, Omohundro, Shanahan, Hutter, Schmidhuber, Sutton, Davison, plus Turing & I.J. Good), with detailed quotes. The key reframing: this isn't a dueling-luminaries 'controversy' -- the named 'skeptics' (LeCun, Horvitz) and the 'believers' actually AGREE on substance (we're far from AGI; don't ban research; but a few people should start on it now); the only real difference is WHEN to prepare. Reprises the 'two types of no evidence' point and cites the Muller & Bostrom survey (50% HLAI by 2040).

Quality 77 · Excellent. An important, well-researched, and influential AI-risk-discourse piece that became a canonical reference, with a genuinely clarifying reframe (skeptics and believers agree on substance, differ on timing). High-Excellent, though somewhat list/documentation-heavy.

Claude’s paradigm shift 55 · Moderate. Low-Major-shift. The non-controversy reframe and the curated counter-list were a fresh, useful contribution to the 2015 AI-risk debate.

Real-world impact 3 · Moderate. A canonical reference rebutting the media trope that 'real AI experts dismiss AI risk,' with a clarifying reframe (skeptics and believers agree on substance, differ on timing). Influential within AI-risk discourse on a consequential topic, but documentation-heavy and discourse-level — modest RWI.