It seems like the only thing this author can offer is playing on words to make things seem obscure, blurry and unclear. His central argument seems to be that i

It seems like the only thing this author can offer is playing on words to make things seem obscure, blurry and unclear. His central argument seems to be that intelligence is not a thing, and although he doesn't say it directly, but I think he doesn't believe in IQ. He's committing the same kind of fallacy committed by certain radical ideologues, that basically says something along the lines of: since you cannot define something accurately 100% then any statement about the thing is equally invalid. We don't have to engage in this kind of meaningless argument about semantics. There are clear and easy to understand examples of scenarios where super AIs can cause harm to human societies that speakers like Sam Harris have articulated pretty well.