"It also is a bit shallow and does not make strong arguments in the face of conflicting evidence. So not as good as the best humans, but better than a lot of reports that I see." - from the article.

I felt that the article itself suffered from this. It wasn't shallow in it's grasp of AI claims, but shallow and made no strong arguments.

If I want a survey of AI claims without a strong analysis, I can ask AI for that.

> far fewer voices are trying to envision and articulate what a world awash in artificial intelligence might actually look like.

I keep seeing this point being made a lot. And the efforts that I do come across often seem trite and derivative: easy distopia.

I can appreciate that AI companies are reluctant to speculate because they don't want to terrify their (current, human) customers, or provoke regulation. But I also suspect that peoperly envisioning such a world is very difficult for us legacy beings, who jealously guard our apparent cognitive uniqueness.

I wonder if fiction is the best way to approach this task?