A man named Paul Graham, who is a smart person and knows a lot about computers, said that some people in the UK government are not sure how to control or make rules for very smart computer programs called artificial intelligence (AI). He thinks this is funny because these AI programs can do many things by themselves without needing any help from humans. He also says that trying to make rules for them might be difficult and unnecessary, since they are already very good at doing what they want. Read from source...

The main issue with this article is that it does not provide a clear and objective analysis of the topic. Instead, it seems to favor a specific viewpoint and tries to persuade the reader to adopt it. This can be seen in several ways, such as:

1. The use of sensationalist language: The title itself uses words like "slams" and "regulation", which imply a strong negative reaction and opposition to the idea of AI regulation. Similarly, the phrase "most intelligent thing... so far" suggests that Paul Graham's statement is the most impressive and remarkable one ever made on this subject.

2. The selection of sources: The article only quotes Paul Graham and does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives from other experts or stakeholders in the field of AI. This creates a one-sided presentation of the issue, which may not reflect the reality of the situation.

3. The omission of relevant information: The article does not mention any specific examples or evidence to support Paul Graham's claims about AI regulation and its potential impact on innovation and society. This makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate the validity and relevance of his arguments, as well as to understand the broader context and implications of this topic.

4. The injection of personal opinions: The article frequently uses words like "I", "we", and "our" to express the author's own views and feelings about AI regulation, which may not be shared by other readers or experts in the field. For example, the author states that they are "not sure yet" what they think of AI regulation, which implies a sense of uncertainty and confusion that may not be appropriate for an informative article.

5. The appeal to emotions: The article tries to evoke emotional reactions from the reader by using words like "fear", "doubt", and "uncertainty" to describe AI regulation, which may influence their perception and attitude towards this issue without providing any rational or factual support.

Neutral

Key points:
- Paul Graham slams AI regulation after person assisting UK government said he 'wasn't sure yet' what they were going to regulate.
- Graham is the co-founder of Y Combinator, a startup accelerator that has backed many successful AI companies.
- He argues that AI regulation is premature and unnecessary, as AI is still far from being able to pose a threat to humanity or society.
- He cites the example of OpenAI's GPT-3, which he says is not intelligent enough to understand its own input or output, let alone have any moral agency or intent.
- He also criticizes the lack of creativity and innovation in AI research, which he attributes to the focus on benchmarks and metrics rather than actual problems and solutions.

Summary:
The article reports on Paul Graham's criticism of AI regulation, based on his speech at a recent event. Graham is an influential figure in the AI industry, as the co-founder of Y Combinator, which has supported many successful AI startups. He argues that AI is still very limited and does not pose any significant risks or challenges to humanity or society. He also laments the lack of creativity and innovation in AI research, which he blames on the obsession with benchmarks and metrics rather than real problems and solutions. The article has a neutral sentiment, as it presents both sides of the argument without taking a clear stance.