New Scientist Asked Whether AI Is Out of Control. Experts Disagreed.

New Scientist posed a straightforward question to multiple experts. The experts provided answers. The answers did not align. Some said yes. Some said no. Some said the question itself was malformed. This is how expert opinion functions when the phenomenon in question is not yet stable enough to have consistent properties.

The consistent pattern is that disagreement among credentialed people generates the appearance of legitimate debate. The appearance of legitimate debate creates space for any position to be held indefinitely. Nobody files a report that says 'the experts cannot agree because the thing is still changing.' That would be efficient.

The comment section exists. People are using it. They are not reading the expert answers. They are reading each other.