I'm not him, but I would guess that he would respond by saying that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to remain in control of what we're putting into the world. If there's a conflict between the given timelines and how quickly a human can understand the problem and the implications of the decision being made, then the thing that needs to budge is the timeline.

So those goals and timelines should be reconsidered; If a civil engineering firm slapped up a bridge as quickly and cheaply as possible with no concern for quality, they would cease to exist. We have no standards for software quality, and therefore anything that accelerated the perceived output is enthusiastically adopted without consideration for any future consequences.

Weinberg’s Law -- If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.

While I agree with you at some level, I can't help thinking of the Amish. They impose plenty of restrictions on themselves and still manage to flourish. There must be a way that is different than simply accepting "progress".

However will he invent the next advancement in user tracking via advertisements!

The average user here thinks they're doing far more important work than they actually are.

He is an educator at a public university. I don't think they push people or goals very hard.

At that point, humans are pretty much unemployable anyway, so why worry?

> Until the goals given him are unachievable, in the given timelines, by human thinking and reasoning alone.

Would that not be tantamount to constructive dismissal? Consider: you may have your prayer times during the day, but they will be counted against you in performance evaluations.

Exactly. The person or people above him who wanted AI to be used against his will will ultimately achieve their goals---no matter what his beliefs are. At the end of the day, his views of humanism are futile against the force of those in favor of AI acceptance.

[dead]