Continuing the discussion from Scholarship Practice (Thorstad Cite Checking) and checking the first cite Elliot provided:
The panel did not lament such a tendency, in word or tone.
One relevant definition for lament is:
an expression of regret or disappointment; a complaint: there were constant laments about the conditions of employment.
From the report being cited:
Panelists reviewed and assessed popular expectations and concerns. The focus group noted a tendency for the general public, science-fiction writers, and futurists to dwell on radical long-term outcomes of AI research, while overlooking the broad spectrum of opportunities and challenges with developing and fielding applications that leverage different aspects of machine intelligence.
(bold added)
Note the use of the word “noted”. That’s very neutral and not lamenting at all. Ok, but maybe they lament elsewhere? Nope. They are skeptical, but in a pretty measured and respectful way:
There was overall skepticism about the prospect of an intelligence explosion as well as of a “coming singularity”, and also about the large-scale loss of control of intelligent systems. Nevertheless, there was a shared sense that additional research would be valuable on methods for understanding and verifying the range of behaviors of complex computational systems to minimize unexpected outcomes. Some panelists recommended that more research needs to be done to better define “intelligence explosion”, and also to better formulate different classes of such accelerating intelligences.
…
The group suggested outreach and communication to people and organizations about the low likelihood of the radical outcomes, sharing the rationale for the overall comfort of scientists in this realm, and for the need to educate people outside the AI research community about the promise of AI for enhancing the quality of human life in numerous ways, coupled with a re-focusing of attention on on actionable, shorter-term challenges.
Basically: we’re skeptical about stuff, but additional research is warranted, along with outreach and education to share our perspective.
Note that Thorstad also said:
One hypothesis in particular drew the panel’s ire. The singularity hypothesis begins with the supposition that artificial agents will gain the ability to improve their own intelligence.
The above quotes do not reflect “ire” anymore than they reflect lamenting. Thorstad is adding a combative framing to the material he is citing.