The knapsack problem and 3SAT are both NP-complete. Are they the same problem? No, strictly speaking. Yes, in a certain functional sense. A solution for one can be (computationally speaking) trivially transformed into a solution for the other.
I see the same applying to (general intelligence in tool mode) and (general intelligence in an autonomous mode). We will not live in a world in which one exists but the other is a ways off.
ETA: Differences of opinion regarding the definition of an agent and such reside in the map, not the territory. No matter what you call "that-which-optimizes", it's a problem if it can out-optimize us, going in a different direction. What label we put onto such a phenomenon should have no bearing regarding the warranted level of concern.
I agree with you on the relationship between AGI in tool mode and an autonomous mode. However, this objection to the Friendly AI project does keep coming up. If we're right about this, we're not communicating very well.
He might be applying motivated cognition, but by presenting paperclip-like scenarios rather than formal deduction of the autonomy issue from any general intelligence, we're letting him do that.
And if differences of opinion regarding the definition of autonomy exist, and those differences don't precisely map to differences of opinion regardin...
https://medium.com/backchannel/ai-wont-exterminate-us-it-will-empower-us-5b7224735bf3
(Slashdot discussion: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/12/10/1719232/ai-expert-ai-wont-exterminate-us----it-will-empower-us)
Not sure what the local view of Oren Etzioni or the Allen Institute for AI is, but I'm curious what people think if his views on UFAI risk. As far as I can tell from this article, it basically boils down to "AGI won't happen, at least not any time soon." Is there (significant) reason to believe he's wrong, or is it simply too great a risk to leave to chance?