Max Tegmark acclaimed it as "The most important book of the decade", writing that "the competition to build smarter-than-human machines isn't an arms race but a suicide race, fueled by wishful thinking." [2]
Stephen Fry wrote in a review: "Yudkowsky and Soares, who have studied AI and its possible trajectories for decades, sound a loud trumpet call to humanity to awaken us as we sleepwalk into disaster. Their brilliant gift for analogy, metaphor and parable clarifies for the general reader the tangled complexities of AI engineering, cognition and neuroscience better than any book on the subject I've ever read, and I've waded through scores of them" and called it the most important book he's read for years. [3]
Ben Bernanke said it's "A clearly written and compelling account of the existential risks that highly advanced AI could pose to humanity."
It also received praise from Vitalik Buterin, Grimes, Scott Aaronson, Bruce Schneier, George Church, Tim Urban, Dorothy Sue Cobble, Huw Price, Jon Wolfsthal, Mark Ruffalo, Patton Oswalt, Alex Winter, and Emmett Shear. [4] [5]
Critical reception
Reviews of the book by critics have been more mixed.
Writing for The New York Times , Stephen Marche said the book "reads like a Scientology manual" and that it "evokes the feeling of being locked in a room with the most annoying students you met in college while they try mushrooms for the first time". [6]
The Guardian wrote: "Should you worry about superintelligent AI? The answer from one of the tech world’s most influential doomsayers, Eliezer Yudkowsky, is emphatically yes. The good news? We aren’t there yet, and there are still steps we can take to avert disaster." [7]
Science editor at The Times found the book convincing: "Are they right? Given the gravity of the case they make, it feels an odd thing to say that this book is good. It is readable. It tells stories well. At points it is like a thriller — albeit one where the thrills come from the obliteration of literally everything of value. [...] The achievement of this book is, given the astonishing claims they make, that they make a credible case for not being mad. But I really hope they are: because I can’t see a way we get off that ladder." [8]
Steven Levy in Wired wrote that "even after reading this book, I don’t think it’s likely that AI will kill us all"" and "the solutions they propose to stop the devastation seem even more far-fetched than the idea that software will murder us all", but mentioned a study of AI contemplating blackmail and concluded "My gut tells me the scenarios Yudkowsky and Soares spin are too bizarre to be true. But I can’t be sure they are wrong." [9]
Kevin Canfield wrote in San Francisco Chronicle that the book makes powerful arguments and recommended it. [10]
Jacob Aron, writing for New Scientist , called the book "extremely readable" but added that "the problem is that, while compelling, the argument is fatally flawed", concluding that effort would be better spent on "problems of science fact" like climate change. [11]
Publishers Weekly said the book is an "urgent clarion call to prevent the creation of artificial superintelligence" and a "frightening warning that deserves to be reckoned with", but mentioned that the authors "make extensive use of parables and analogies, some of which are less effective than others" and "present precious few opposing viewpoints, even though not all experts agree with their dire perspective." [12]
Kirkus Reviews gave a positive review, calling the book "a timely and terrifying education on the galloping havoc AI could unleash". [13]
