Ignorance of what? You're saying his argument is lazy and ignorant, but you're not backing that up.
I think he is willfully refusing to "imagine potential problems" - because a core point of the article is that people are "imagining magic", which isn't really an argument, but more of a way of whipping people into an emotional frenzy (all jobs will be taken by robots, dystopian futures, etc)
Brooks is challenging the notion of superhuman AI eating the world without anything limiting it.
His obvervation is that the future road to superhuman intelligence will be paved with events, not known to us now, that will provide us with experience to handle the emergence of the malevolent AI.m
This shows that the author is not suggesting that since we can’t foresee the future, we simply should hide our head in the sand, plug our ears, la la la.
On the contrary, he is implying that our normal human tactics of being concerned with the future are more robust than we might fear, and will continue to serve us into the unknown future.
The current state of AI is some clever algorithms to solve very specific problems. What is being extrapolated from that is everyone losing their job and/or being enslaved by computers. This is the point the author is trying to make. It's basically a form of hysteria.
OR
Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm (more difficult to read)
Not to say that Superintelligence isn't worth reading (as you say, it's a pretty enjoyable book), but I think it's important to point out that Bostrom's views are not broadly accepted by the people actually writing ML/AI code.
The primary concerns I've seen from the community are
a) issues with research itself (lots of derivative/incremental/epicycle-adding works with precious few lasting improvements)
b) issues with ethics (ML models propagating bias in their training data; ML models being used to violate privacy/anonymity)
c) issues with public perception/presentation (any ML/AI tech today is usually incredibly specialized, built to solve a single specific problem, but journalists and people pitching AI startups frequently represent AI as general-purpose magic that gains new capabilities with minimal human intervention).
On a tangent, I've found it an interesting marker if a commentator speaks of the Three Laws of Robotics as if they are part of a solution. We can't even explicitly codify how those laws (ethics) should function for ourselves, let alone put them in as a restriction into a computer system. Whenever I see those mentioned as part of a solution, then I know the commentator really is only thinking of surface issues and 'sci-fi magic' answers.
> Periodic reminder that most of Isaac Asimov's stories were about how the three laws of robotics DON'T ACTUALLY WORK.
(https://twitter.com/grok_/status/904675286230470656 - MIT Research Specialist in Robot Ethics, in the superintelligence-is-in-no-way-a-serious-concern camp)
> It must be emphasized that Asimov wrote fiction...The general consensus seems to be that no set of rules can ever capture every possible situation and that interaction of rules may lead to unforeseen circumstances and undetectable loopholes leading to devastating consequences for humanity
(https://intelligence.org/files/SafetyEngineering.pdf - MIRI, home of Bostrom, Yudkowsky, and other the-superintelligence-control-problem-is-super-important folks)
To the extent that there are sides here, both of them seem strongly in agreement that the Three Laws are a narrative device and not a solution to anything.
I did like the 'history' bit at the start, where it mentions the frustrations AI researchers have - every time they reach a goal, it's then labelled "Not AI", and the definition of AI then becomes more complex.