But their main point, as I understand, is that the generalising critique of CEOs was missing the point that CEOs who apparently know what they’re talking about can also be pro-AI.
Um, I guess? But do keep in mind, if there were a league of companies all dumping arsenic into a river, it would seem a little odd to me to insist that "some of them aren't crazy."
Like, I think that dumping arsenic into the water supply—at all—is sort of mentally disqualifying. Only anti-social, selfish, narcissistic psychopaths are capable of doing that. There's no room for such a person to destroy public resources like that and be considered polite, if misguided company.
I worry more so that the anti-AI side is struggling to express our side of things clearly and convincingly.
Maybe. It's a question that's always worth asking. That said, though, is convincing them with reason really what we're trying to do? Have you tried reasoning with a 9/11 truther, for instance?
Reason is a very powerful tool, but it only works if the people you're talking to are interested in the truth.
Racists are not defeated because they are convinced that their welfare-queen idea doesn't make any sense, or that it doesn't bore out in the data. They are defeated when their sentiments are socially stamped out, when airing out one's racism gets you publically flogged and discarded.
I just—in general, I don't see the point in nit-picking people's arguments against AI or CEOs when public disgust for it is what's measurably important.