I merely repeated one of the distortions of events from ancient history that was used more than once on this site in recent months to try to smear the Berkeley rationalists. I think it illustrates the lazy ad hominem tactics of those who are made uncomfortable by any talk of catastrophic risks from continued "progress" in this decade's shiniest technology.

I should add by way of explanation that there is a close connection between those who see continued "progress" in AI as very risky and the Berkeley rationalists: in fact, the writings that form the core of the rationalist movement (very analogous to how Paul Graham's writings form the core of HN) were written to try to enable more people to appreciate the riskiness of AI "progress" -- and those with a strong emotional or ideological attachment to (or financial interest in) continued AI "progress" know about this connection, which is why they like to try to smear the rationalists.