Respectfully, it’s hard for me to follow your comment because of the amount of times you say things like “If Jake claims to disagree with this,” “based on the premise that this is false,” “must therefore not rely on it or be false,” and “I don’t think they rely on it.” The double negatives plus pointing to things with the word “this” and “it” makes me lose confidence in my ability to track your line of thinking. If you could speak in the positive and replace your “pointer terms” like “this” and “it” with the concrete claims you’re referring to, that would help a lot!
Understandable, I edited in clearer references—did that resolve all the issues? I’m not sure in return that I parsed all your issues parsing :) I appreciate the specific request!
It helps! There are still some double negatives (“His claims about safety must therefore not rely on ai not surpassing humans, or be false” could be reworded to “his claims about safety can only be true if they allow for AI surpassing humans,” for example), and I, not being a superintelligence, would find that easier to parse :)
The “pointers” bit is mostly fixed by you replacing the word “this” with the phrase “the claim that ai can starkly surpass humans.” Thank you for the edits!
Respectfully, it’s hard for me to follow your comment because of the amount of times you say things like “If Jake claims to disagree with this,” “based on the premise that this is false,” “must therefore not rely on it or be false,” and “I don’t think they rely on it.” The double negatives plus pointing to things with the word “this” and “it” makes me lose confidence in my ability to track your line of thinking. If you could speak in the positive and replace your “pointer terms” like “this” and “it” with the concrete claims you’re referring to, that would help a lot!
Understandable, I edited in clearer references—did that resolve all the issues? I’m not sure in return that I parsed all your issues parsing :) I appreciate the specific request!
It helps! There are still some double negatives (“His claims about safety must therefore not rely on ai not surpassing humans, or be false” could be reworded to “his claims about safety can only be true if they allow for AI surpassing humans,” for example), and I, not being a superintelligence, would find that easier to parse :)
The “pointers” bit is mostly fixed by you replacing the word “this” with the phrase “the claim that ai can starkly surpass humans.” Thank you for the edits!