I do independent research on EA topics. I write about whatever seems important, tractable, and interesting (to me).
I have a website: https://mdickens.me/ Much of the content on my website gets cross-posted to the EA Forum, but I also write about some non-EA stuff over there.
I used to work as a software developer at Affirm.
I vouch for the argument and welcome criticism of it.
Thank you for this. This is the right way to do AI-assisted writing.
I think the math is unnecessary since this is a conceptual argument, especially given that you yourself don't understand the math. A proof isn't worth much because the real question is whether the premises of the proof are true.
As for the conceptual argument in the abstract:
FWIW this type of argument has gotten some prior discussion, and the counter-arguments I gave are not original to me. You might search for writings on the question of "would AI keep humans as pets?" or similar.
Update: I have noticed a suspicious pattern with AI-generated user profiles. Profiles that fit this pattern are not always AI-generated, but it's a red flag:
like they're treating EAF as if it's LinkedIn
This gap isn't too substantial IMO. Compare to the gap on something like immigration (78% of Republicans support a border wall vs. 21% of Democrats) or abortion (20% of Republicans say it's morally acceptable, vs. 78% of Democrats).
Another common pattern I'm noticing is that AI writers love inventing their own jargon. They may or may not also define the jargon.