I think it’s clear from your search results and the answers below that there isn’t one representative position.
But even if there were, I think it’s more useful for you to just make your arguments in the way you’ve outlined, without focusing on one general article to disagree with.
There’s a very specific reason for this: Think about the target audience. These questions are now vital topics being discussed at government level, which impact national and international policies, and corporate strategies at major international companies.
If your argument is strong, surely you’d want it to be accessible to the people working on these policies, rather than just to a small group of EA people who will recognise all the arguments you’re addressing.
If you want to write in a way that is very accessible, it’s better not to just say “I disagree with Person X on this” but rather, “My opinion is Y. There are those, such as person X, who disagree, because they believe that … (explanation of point of disagreement).”
There is the saying that the best way to get a correct answer to any question these days is to post an incorrect answer and let people correct you. In the same spirit, if you outline your positions, people will come back with objections, whether original or citing other work, and eventually you can modify your document to address these. So it becomes a living document representing your latest thinking.
This is also valuable because AI itself is evolving, and we’re learning more about it every day. So even if your argument is accurate based on what we know today, you might want to change something tomorrow.
(Yes, I realise what I’ve proposed is a lot more work! But maybe the first version, outlining what you think, is already valuable in and of itself).
I think it’s clear from your search results and the answers below that there isn’t one representative position.
But even if there were, I think it’s more useful for you to just make your arguments in the way you’ve outlined, without focusing on one general article to disagree with.
There’s a very specific reason for this: Think about the target audience. These questions are now vital topics being discussed at government level, which impact national and international policies, and corporate strategies at major international companies.
If your argument is strong, surely you’d want it to be accessible to the people working on these policies, rather than just to a small group of EA people who will recognise all the arguments you’re addressing.
If you want to write in a way that is very accessible, it’s better not to just say “I disagree with Person X on this” but rather, “My opinion is Y. There are those, such as person X, who disagree, because they believe that … (explanation of point of disagreement).”
There is the saying that the best way to get a correct answer to any question these days is to post an incorrect answer and let people correct you. In the same spirit, if you outline your positions, people will come back with objections, whether original or citing other work, and eventually you can modify your document to address these. So it becomes a living document representing your latest thinking.
This is also valuable because AI itself is evolving, and we’re learning more about it every day. So even if your argument is accurate based on what we know today, you might want to change something tomorrow.
(Yes, I realise what I’ve proposed is a lot more work! But maybe the first version, outlining what you think, is already valuable in and of itself).