If artificial intelligence is more effective at a given job than humans, even if it's not in all aspects, wouldn't companies choose artificial intelligence due to their overall proficiency, availability, and not needing to compensate them. Also, in some industries, such as art and entertainment, I find it hard to think of jobs that would be created if AI is fully used to generate the content.

If artificial intelligence was used to enhance the rate at which biological discoveries are made, I do not think that this will improve biological progress by that much because of limitations on funding and research into new discoveries.

I did not think about this limitation regarding complex concepts like particle acceleration, but it makes sense with the copious amounts of data needed to train large language models and other forms of artificial intelligence.

I understand the excitement and push toward powerful artificial intelligence to solve complex problems and automate processes, but I don't understand the desire to use it to fully generate art, literature, and entertainment.

I agree that artificial intelligence can be used to improve the quality of human life on many fronts, but I also believe that it can detriment our lives and be used maliciously in a plethora of ways. For example, two of the categories that he is most excited for AI to be applied to are peace and governance, and work and meaning. Applications such as lethal autonomous weapons and job displacement due to automation make me rather cynical about AI's usage in these areas.

It's typically easier to identify the benefits of new technologies because they are created with specific purposes in mind. Innovators get caught up in how they will change an area for the better and are unable to recognize significant harms with those technologies. For example, with artificial intelligence, it was mainly created to automate tasks and solve complex problems, but overreliance on AI can lead to cognitive atrophy and diminished critical thinking skills.