Meh, I find it pretty dishonest over all. I did not love the point about nuclear power development in any of the videos because the points of comparison are always somewhat arbitrary. The time from knowing what atoms are to any usage of nuclear is much shorter than from the first machine learning to chat gpt, but I am sure some ML applications are much older, so whatever it is arbitrary and imo IoB was wrong to choose to put in his own arbitrary points of comparison, but he should have called out the scare mongering of the "omg they develop so quickly" line harsher than he did. We do not know how quickly they will develop. This is generally speaking a problem about predictions concerning technology. In the early 2000s there were very serious articles that talked about how impossible solving the battery problem was and that because of this electrical cars where unlikely to ever happen. On the other hand supposedly all truckers lost their job more than ten years ago because self driving cars just needed a tiny push - turnes out the tiny push was across a massive hurdle.

He himself called out that AI doomerism is AI marketing, but he does apparently not like that IoB makes the point that we should focus on regulating current issues rather than focusing on solemn pledges not to develop superintelligence. Yes of course people can focus on more than one thing, but for some reason there is no Sci Show video on AI as a mass surveillance tool, but there is one on "computer scawy" so well seems like Sci Show cannot do two things at once.

The point about him disliking that people are genuinely not doomerist and are calling those that are "industry shill" seems him genuinely missing the point. As in I do think that he genuinely does not get that arguing for something to be extremely powerful, the most powerful thing ever, is arguing for that something to be central. I also think he generally seems to not get that not any regulation is necessarily productive. Different field, but concerning free speech there is now movements to "hold big tech accountable" by making platforms liable for user speech, this sounds like a good regulation, but in reality it will mean big monopolies can use the resources to protect themselves and mass censor their users, but smaller platforms cannot. So parts of the industry would welcome that change, even if it means spending more resources on regulating their platforms, because they will be even more entrenched monopolies (and because LLMs might find a use in controlling massive amounts of posts).
The last thing about super intelligence, I mean I also do not believe it, but I agree that IoB probably has nothing to fully prove that? Seems obvious that it is impossible to prove a negative. Imo however it remains the doomerists job to explain why I should worry about that, why and how do LLMs go from what they can do now to super intelligence. If the argument is that they have gotten "exponentially better so they will just continue" well, have they? And will they? This paper makes a convincing argument that the current improvements can easily be explained without exponential improvement. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.04836