[tbrownaw]

I read it as approximately saying that he has a known very strong agenda and so shouldn't be trusted to argue honestly. Much like the routine exhortations to disbelieve any research corporations do on topics relevant to their bottom line.

Given that this article seems to be advocating that anything that looks like too-advanced AI should be preemptively destroyed, and uses the word "proliferation" to refer to people while drawing comparisons to nuclear policy, I don't think the agenda is exactly hidden enough to need that sort is warning.

[ok_dad]

Then the OP should have said that, not with the language they used which was textbook FUD content. Your argument at the end actually points to language in the linked article that shows we souls probably be weary while we read it, which is an improvement over the OP.