You are affirming the consequent and also overgeneralizing.
I argued that ‘some economically valuable uses of AGI are replacing humans’ (disproving Szabo’s core argument that “AGI can always be outperformed at a specific task by a specialized-AI, therefore, there are no economically valuable uses of AGI”).
That is not the same thing as ‘all replacements of humans are economically valuable uses of AGI’ for which ‘non-AGI HFTs replacing humans’ serves as a disproof (but so would cars or machines, for that matter).
You are affirming the consequent and also overgeneralizing.
I argued that ‘some economically valuable uses of AGI are replacing humans’ (disproving Szabo’s core argument that “AGI can always be outperformed at a specific task by a specialized-AI, therefore, there are no economically valuable uses of AGI”).
That is not the same thing as ‘all replacements of humans are economically valuable uses of AGI’ for which ‘non-AGI HFTs replacing humans’ serves as a disproof (but so would cars or machines, for that matter).