Yes, and here towards the bottom the author gets to the reason he didn’t sign with the other medalists:

> I felt that there was nothing to be gained from criticizing AI companies for generating too many solutions too quickly.

> Under the circumstances, I think the best we can do is recognise the changes that are coming and try to work out the least unsatisfactory way of dealing with them.

Basically let’s make it a short-term problem and deal with it. Groups of people can deal with short term emergencies. Don’t turn it into a structural issue.

And in my view what’s the alternative in the letter exactly? The tools exist. Is there going to be drama every time somebody decides to use them?

The tools exist, so let’s try to figure out as humans the best way to use them to promote humanity, and let’s advocate against ways of using them which are a detriment to humanity, which is exactly the charge the letter makes. There are cultural norms around the use of every technology.

Well I think in response to 'what are you going to do', what people are probably going to do is stop sharing on-going work, stop bothering to curate problems that are just going to inflate someone's IPO valuation, basically accelerating the tragedy of the commons that the AI companies are driving.