Most notably, the wordcount includes a large fraction of televised-news conservative rhetoric. It lacks an obvious audience. Conservative echo-box members may find this agreeable. The author involves their character amateurishly. Little insightful history is present. The author does demonstrate a Zubrinite era education. There is significant wordcount to Asimovian comparisons. LLM's are non-Asimovian so the points are weak and far between. If the author could remove their person, and make it a bard-like story, there would be content to work with. As it's presented it's too thin for a well-educated audience, and not TV for a TV viewing audience. It's not direct fearmongering, but might be better off if it were. ( )

This is a short book with little content of value. The author rambles about largely questions of whether someone can opt out of AI. The book has basically no technical content and is largely the opinion of the author. His focus appears to be based on a right wing political philosophy. I consider the book a disappointment for me. ( )

The book reads like a collection of historical anecdotes and not like an expert's opinion. By working with an actual example of an extensive AI experiment, that of writing a book, the author creates an engaging environment which captures the attention of the reader. Although there are rather far-fetched claims of what could happen with AI, which have no supporting evidence, it does not seriously detract from the overall thought-provoking nature of the material. His understanding of theology is a good deal outside what is considered Christian. He questions what an AI would do should it become omnipotent (the exact definition of which was left ambiguous) and implied that it would be negative for humanity. Leaving that question he moves to an example of morality and then asks what morals should be uploaded. This rather refutes the idea that the AI would be a god, because a god would do the deciding. He speaks of a perfect democracy run by an AI. This seems to be something of a contradiction as a perfect democracy is run by the people.
Overall, the book is a free-ranging romp, skirting or actually crossing the line of disseminating fear, uncertainty, and doubt. A wide range of topics is discussed, but not in any depth and from one perspective only. It serves well to disclose the author's position on these topics but quite a bit less so the real ramifications of the impact of AI beyond some conjecture. Many good, important questions are asked in the material and the author gives his opinion on those questions, although he does not state it as opinion, but fact. Knowing this, the questions he raises are still important to consider and his position is helpful because it certainly represents a portion of the general population. The end page of the book states that a book by the author is almost a one-on-one discussion. Close. It's more akin to a one-way lecture, but you still do get his opinion very clearly. If you're looking for one man's opinion on a range of topics closely or loosely related to AI, this is a short, entertaining read.