This is a very roundabout way of saying "Anyone not agreeing with me is simply not smart enough".

Which might be true, sometimes, but also might not.

And especially will not, if the distinction drawn is between blanket statement "worried about AI" and "not worried about AI".

I heard someone use the analogy of "If I were to play Magnus Carlson at chess, I'd have no idea what moves he'd play, since if I did, I'd be at his level. He'll consider things I didn't. Even though I don't know the route he'll take to win, he will beat me." (not an exact quote).

We're not going to be smarter than a superintelligent AI. The things we can conceive it doing if it were to be given a malicious task (bioterrorism, killer nano-machines, pure fusion bombs sidesteping the non-proliferation bottleneck of Pu239, etc) are very likely not the full set of things it can do to harm us. I don't think it does us any favors to dismiss the risks here.

Even the things we can conceive of are very scary, to me at least.

It's not about being smart, it's about accounting for your own ignorance.

>And especially will not, if the distinction drawn is between blanket statement "worried about AI" and "not worried about AI".

I'm just describing the general pattern I see in cognitive tendencies.

If you can think of a way to make the fundamental point about the limitations of our knowledge in a way that's still compelling but less antagonistic, feel free to suggest how I could've rewritten my comment.