This just bugs me too much.
No, I do not think there is disagreement. You tell many people that X is a largest member of the set. They come up with members that are larger than X. If they give different answers, that is not disagreement of some kind. If X is particularly ill chosen for being the largest member of the set, then there can be enormous number of members larger than X.
If you want to claim substantial disagreement, e.g. if you claim that promoters of intelligence amplification see computer security as entirely unhelpful and a net increase in the risk, you got to provide examples (surely a sufficiently twisted reasoner can argue that computer security will be an annoying obstacle that will piss off the future cyborg overlord). edit: that's it, I think claiming that those who disagree are selling their examples as 'the best that could be done' is a bit of uncharitable interpretation (or actually, a lot). For the most part, it's just examples of what is better to do than FAI.
Holden presumably thinks that many academic AGI approaches are too risky since they are agent designs:
I believe that tools are safer than agents (even agents that make use of the best "Friendliness" theory that can reasonably be hoped for) and that SI encourages a focus on building agents, thus increasing risk.
Nick Szabo thinks working on mind uploading is a waste of time.
I personally promoted intelligence amplification and argued that working on security is of little utility.
Robin Hanson thinks the Singularity will be an important event that...
Related Posts: A cynical explanation for why rationalists worry about FAI, A belief propagation graph
Lately I've been pondering the fact that while there are many critics of SIAI and its plan to form a team to build FAI, few of us seem to agree on what SIAI or we should do instead. Here are some of the alternative suggestions offered so far: