The discussion of the Yudkowsky-Hanson debate feels rather out of place. The points made are mostly highly relevant to the paper; the fact that they were made during an online debate is less so; the particular language used by either side in that debate still less. This discussion is also particularly informal and blog-post-like (random example: footnote 30), which may or may not be a problem depended on the intended audience for the paper.
I’d recommend major reworking of this section, still addressing the same issues but no longer so concerned with what each party said, or thought, or was happy to concede during that particular debate.
The discussion of the Yudkowsky-Hanson debate feels rather out of place. The points made are mostly highly relevant to the paper; the fact that they were made during an online debate is less so; the particular language used by either side in that debate still less. This discussion is also particularly informal and blog-post-like (random example: footnote 30), which may or may not be a problem depended on the intended audience for the paper.
I’d recommend major reworking of this section, still addressing the same issues but no longer so concerned with what each party said, or thought, or was happy to concede during that particular debate.