PSA: Want to have a positive impact, quickly? Go to the NYT page linked in the OP and leave a comment.
EDIT: More and more nonsense comments, highly upvoted too, but not one from a LW'er. This is how public perception is shaped, and the fruit are so low hanging they should be called potatos.
I didn't feel like entering the morass of the comment debate, but I added a simple informational comment, mentioning FHI and SI.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/cambridge-cabs-and-copenhagen-my-route-to-existential-risk/
Author: Huw Price (Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge)
The article is mainly about the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and the author's speculation about AI (and his association with Jaan Tallinn). Nothing made me really stand up and think "This is something I've never heard on Less Wrong", but it is interesting to see Existential risk and AI getting more mainstream attention, and the author reproduces tabooing in his willful avoidance of attempting to define the term "intelligence".
The comments all miss the point or reproduce cached thoughts with frustrating predictability. I think I find them to be so frustrating because these do not seem to be unintelligent people (by the standards of the internet at least; their comments have good grammar and vocabulary), but they are not really processing.