Please accept my minor criticism as an offering of peace and helpfulness: you seen to be missing the trees for the forest. If something is genuinely safe then meticulous and clear thinking should indicate its safety to all right thinking people. If something is genuinely dangerous then meticulous and clear thinking should indicate its danger to all right thinking people.

You're bringing up hypothetical scenarios (like automated chip design) to which the label "strongly super human" can sort of be applied (because so much computing machinery can be brought to bear), but not applied well. Strongly super human, to me, would describe a process that could compose poetry about the quality of the chip designs (just as human chip designers can), except "better than human". It would mean that you could have a natural language conversation with with the chip design process (just as you can with human chip designers), and it would adaptively probe your communicative intent and then take that intent into account in its design efforts... except again, "better than human".

After explaining your hypothetical scenario, you re-deployed the vague ascription of the label "strongly superhuman" to a context of political safety issues and asserted without warrant or evidence that SI is opposed to this thing that most readers can probably agree is probably safe (depending on details, which of course you didn't supply in your hypothetical). Then you used the imagined dumb response of SI to your imaginary and poorly categorized scenario as evidence for them being dumb, and offered this imaginary scenario as evidence that it justifies writing off SI as a group full of irrecoverably incompetent people, and thus people not worth paying attention to.

Despite your use of a throw-away account, I'm going to assume you're not just trying to assassinate the character of SI for reasons that benefit yourself for boring prosaic reasons like competition within a similar pool of potential donors or something. I'm going to assume that you're trying to maximize positive outcomes for yourself and that your own happiness now is connected to your own happiness 50 years from now, and the prospects of other humans as well. Admittedly, you seem to have bugs in your ability to explicitly value things, so this is perhaps too generous...

For your own sake, and that of the world, please read and ponder this sequence. Imagine what it would be like to be wrong in the ways described. Imagine seeing people in the grip of political insanity of the sort described there as people who are able to improve, and people worthy of empathy even if they can't or won't improve, and imagine how you might help them stop being crazy with gentle advice or emotional rapport plus exposure to the evidence, or, you know, whatever you think would help people not be broken that way... and then think about how you might apply similar lessons recursively to yourself. I think it would help you, and I think it would help you send better consequential ripples out into the world, especially in the long run, like 3, 18, 50, and 500 months from now.