To understand X, it is necessary to understand its relations to other things in the world.
But to understand its relations to each of the other things that exist, it is necessary to understand each of those things as well.
Y describes many of the things that commonly interact with X.
Therefore, the best way to advance our understanding of X, is to learn about Y.
Is that a fair description of the structure of the argument? If so, are you arguing that our understanding of superintelligence needs to be advanced through better understanding of security, or that our understanding of security needs to be advanced by better understanding of superintelligence?
This argument seems be following a common schema:
To understand X, it is necessary to understand its relations to other things in the world.
But to understand its relations to each of the other things that exist, it is necessary to understand each of those things as well.
Y describes many of the things that commonly interact with X.
Therefore, the best way to advance our understanding of X, is to learn about Y.
Is that a fair description of the structure of the argument? If so, are you arguing that our understanding of superintelligence needs to be advanced through better understanding of security, or that our understanding of security needs to be advanced by better understanding of superintelligence?