[discreteevent]

The "good" argument is that people trust other people's opinion more who have not been paid to advertise. I trust the doctor who personally recommends a drug more than the doctor who was paid to recommend the drug - even if they recommended the drug before they were paid. That's a fact of life, it's not "character assassination". Tao didn't do anything wrong by making an ad but he can't expect people to take his opinion seriously after someone gave him a lot of money to state an opinion that favors them.

[pfdietz]

It's proper to suspect arguments that are motivated by self-interest. The stronger that self-interest, the more one should suspect the argument. This is what you're saying?

In that case, the anti-AI Luddite arguments are maximally impeached, since they are motivated by fear of personal disaster. Tao doesn't need AI to succeed; the Luddites desperately need it to fail. So they are willing to say anything, jumping right to ad hominem arguments when they lack any real substantive rebuttal.

[keybored]

The billionaires shall inherit the Earth, for they are minimally of want and need, only merely aspiring for more accumulation of wealth as a sport.

[pfdietz]

Or, we can judge what they say by the merits rather than hypocritically applying ad hominem arguments to them and not to others.

[keybored]

It’s not an ad hominem.

[brookst]

I don’t know that Terry much cares about the opinions of people who judge claims based on innuendo and cynicism rather than the actual merits of the claim.