if you do want to analyze the plausibility of an intelligence explosion then it seems worthwhile to respond in detail to previous work
If you replace “analyze the plausibility” with “convincingly demonstrate to skeptics” then this seems right.
The OP seems to be written more in the spirit of exploration rather than conclusive argument though, which seems valuable and doesn’t necessarily require responding in detail to prior work (in this case ~100 pages). Seems like kind of a soul-crushing way to respond to curiosity :)
(I hope my own comments didn’t come across harshly.)
If you replace “analyze the plausibility” with “convincingly demonstrate to skeptics” then this seems right.
The OP seems to be written more in the spirit of exploration rather than conclusive argument though, which seems valuable and doesn’t necessarily require responding in detail to prior work (in this case ~100 pages). Seems like kind of a soul-crushing way to respond to curiosity :)
(I hope my own comments didn’t come across harshly.)
You’re right, sorry. Edited.