It's hard not to be when people at those labs talk about the probability of AI killing us all, and if it doesn't do that, then the massive disruption to the labor market that's coming. Combine that with the techno feudalist ideology of leadership.
So yeah, I'm negative against their development of AI along with the general public, and for good reason it would seem.
Also, I don't want super intelligence. I want humans to remain in control. Why are they trying to build something to replace humanity? Why don't we got a vote in this? All 8 billion of us not developing frontier models with the expressed goal of achieving AGI followed closely by ASI.
We didn't get a say in whether we should bet our entire economy on building out infrastructure for half a dozen guys to get rich from. No say in the way they are backdooring around the hamstrung EPA to install greenhouse gas machines to power these things. I think the pushback makes sense.
It's a pity because as computer scientists this should have been such a fun technological moment for us. What a cool thing to experiment and explore new open doors with. But instead it was immediately the driver of mass job loss, societal upheaval, and a double digit percent chance of ending humanity, espoused by the AI lords themselves.
> Why are they trying to build something to replace humanity?
The list of possible reasons is pretty short and mostly not really good for most of us, as far as I see it
Why do you want to block people who are open to the idea of becoming transhuman/hybrids? Let it play out and see whose society turns out better.