Strongly agree. I feel this is the recurring problem of armchair philosophers mistakenly thinking they have something to contribute to scientific or political q

Strongly agree. I feel this is the recurring problem of armchair philosophers mistakenly thinking they have something to contribute to scientific or political questions. Even among the folks that debate this rigorously, another related problem is “reference class tennis”, as you note above, what is the appropriate anchor for your priors? Eg is intelligence going to compound to a runaway reaction like nuclear fission (since more intelligence speeds up intelligence gains in AI) or is it going to asymptote like the current trend in scientific progress?