My problem with the "AI community", philosophically, boils down to a few things:

1) There has never been a time in my life when break-even fusion and artificial intelligence weren't just around the corner.

2) Drawing attention to break-even fusion gets physicists to say "yeah, we were ambitious." Drawing attention to artificial intelligence gets AI researchers to argue that earlier definitions were inaccurate.

3) Considering how arbitrary the definitions are, breaking things down into "weak AI" (IE, things we need not worry about) and "strong AI" (IE, Skynet) seems arbitrary and wrong-headed. It's not like agency is a binary characteristic yet in order to have this discussion, the first thing the AI camp always does is say "don't worry about this, worry about this."

I dunno. I'm disheartened by the rapidity at which the argument devolves into whether the angels dancing on a head of a pin are malevolent or benevolent. At least the "don't worry be happy" crowd tends to focus on concrete things while Stephen "grey goo" Hawking and his posse do tend to argue about hypothetical dangers from hypothetical solutions to hypothetical problems.