In your mind, what arguments about AI risk are ignored by these poems?

Many posit that ASI or rogue AI agents are impossible, a fantasy, or marketing hype. Many claimed that the entire HuggingFace incident was an invented conspiracy made up by OpenAI and HF.

The most common issue I have with them is their insistence on rigid classification: "AI is a tool, it doesn't have intentions, or desires, only humans do", as if that rhetorical flourish eliminates years of alignment and capabilities research. There is a desire to characterize all the developments in LLM's as some sort of parlor trick which by definition cannot be greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. the outputs of an LLM can never be greater than the sum of its training data, genuine artificial "intelligence" is impossible, etc)