I for one did not say to not worry, and I bet $1500 vs. $2250 on Sedol winning the match before getting cold feet and arbing my outstanding bets down to $400 vs. $700.
Can't you just look at the creators of the program? Demis says he certainly does not worry about a "terminator" or "ex machina" style scenario and also predicted they would win: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34266425
Beyond that, it seems reasonable to call for discussion about how AI is used [as he also does in that article].
You are not a counterexample to Teodolfo's claim, which was about people who did say not to worry.
[EDITED to add:] Oh, I see, your point is that it looks like AlphaGo is doing better than an "AI moves fast" advocate expected, rather than (per Teodolfo) no better than some "AI moves slowly" advocates expected. Fair enough.
Why does Teodolfo even need a citation for that? Are you really suggesting that there is no group of people who believe AI is not a threat to worry about, and believed that AlphaGo would win?
I'm sure there's someone on the planet. Which is a very different state of affairs from the one that would obtain if a well-known AI researcher had, say, made a $1500 public bet on AlphaGo winning, while also loudly declaring that worrying about AGI was like worrying about overpopulation on Mars, in the company of other researchers declaring similar combined expectations.
What actually happened was the reverse of that; AI moved faster than I publicly bet a large sum of money on it moving, and I was already worried before then.
I'm not aware of the reverse-reverse having happened.
If you're claiming something as a successful advance prediction to bolster belief in a general model, it's fair play to ask for a record of that advance prediction.
