"It’s rife with amateurism in ‘ethics’, confirmation bias, anthropomorphism and activism," argues Donald Clark, making it clear that there are at least four things he doesn't like. I'm not doing to disagree with his criticism of a lot of work in AI ethics, especially in the popular press. Many of the criticisms focus on design issues, focus on negative outcomes, and argue as though there is some sort of (activist-approved) common understanding of what, exactly, is 'ethical'. But where I disagree is with the assertion that it is "mostly" a waste of time. There's a very large body of work on the subject and the vast majority of it is nuanced and well thought out, and the issues raised can't be dismissed simply by appealing to the criticisms made here.