Overall, I think your abstract and framing is pretty careful to narrow your attention to “is this argument logically sound?” instead of “should we be worried about AI?”, but still this bit jumps out to me:
the argument for the existential risk of AI turns out invalid.
Maybe insert “standard” in front of “argument” again?
Is this ‘standard argument’ valid? We only argue that is problematic.
If this argument is invalid, what would a valid argument look like? Perhaps with a ‘sufficient probability’ of high risk from instrumental intelligence?
Overall, I think your abstract and framing is pretty careful to narrow your attention to “is this argument logically sound?” instead of “should we be worried about AI?”, but still this bit jumps out to me:
Maybe insert “standard” in front of “argument” again?
MIght not even want to imply that it’s the main or only argument. Maybe “this particular argument is invalid”.
I do think it’s fair to describe this as the ‘standard argument’.
Is this ‘standard argument’ valid? We only argue that is problematic.
If this argument is invalid, what would a valid argument look like? Perhaps with a ‘sufficient probability’ of high risk from instrumental intelligence?
Sticking a typo over here instead of the other tree:
“thought is sometimes”
Yes, that means “this argument”.