What is up with e/acc?

I was chatting with someone tonight about a planned documentary; they had interviewed various people in AI safety, and we got to discussing who they should talk to from an e/acc (effective accelerationist) perspective. I also watched The AI Doc recently, and they also dedicated a serious chunk of it to ‘optimists’ with e/acc founder ‘Beff Jezos’ perhaps given the most screen time. Here and elsewhere, people seem to treat e/acc as a substantial contrary-to-AI-safety cultural movement, worth engaging with.But is it? Are there even many e/accs? There seem to be very few notable ones. Beff Jezos is perhaps the most prominent, and aside from founding e/acc he seems to be not distinguishable on casual perusal from a normal crank (his company claims to be developing super-energy-efficient computing hardware based on probabilistic processes). The intellectual tenets of e/acc seem to be pretty unclear. The apparent counterarguments to AI risk raised in situations like the AI doc seem to be widely agreed on by everyone in AI Safety, so don’t explain the disagreement. For instance:AI will be able to do lots of great things, such as cure diseases, make new materials and do all jobsThis is an exciting time to be aliveIt’s great to understand the world and build technologies that make the world betterTechnology has generally been good historicallyIn cases like this, it’s hard to see how they would believe that they have said something that counters the arguments for AI risk, so I don’t know, maybe they are being quoted out of context. But I don’t remember ever hearing one make a counterargument that seemed remotely credible. (And I do think various counterarguments are credible.)At different times e/acc seems to involve a weird combination of the following:AI is going to be incredibly powerful and I hope it destroys us, because it’s better than usAI is going to be very normal and unimpressive or move very slowly, so it is safe, and it would be great if it could move a bit fasterM