This is unnecessarily hostile. None of what you say is inconsistent with anything in yli's comment. He/she was not saying that Beck let "some ding dong research assistant slip views like this past his editorial control". The claim was that while Beck in all probability agrees with the broad conclusions of the excerpt, it is unlikely that he personally researched or wrote it. In so far as people are impressed by the specific content of the excerpt (as opposed to the broad conclusions) or by the fact that it quotes SI people, the credit is probably not due to Beck.
In any case, it's not all that surprising to me that Beck is interested in and convinced by Singularity stuff. He has demonstrated a particular penchant for big ideas that are outside the mainstream, counter-intuitive, vaguely apocalyptic, and that posit that one can attain significant analytic and predictive purchase by paying close attention to patterns in global history. Most such ideas are sheer crackpottery. The singularity happens not to be. However, the fact that he believes in it is not an indication of his sanity, it is an indication of his particular brand of insanity.
The concept of the correct amount of hostility is an interesting one to me. My post doesn't seem all that hostile to me, but I don't have many friends, maybe this is why.
Irregardless of hostility, necessary or unnecessary, in the original post I could see no indication of any reason to question Beck's editorial control over the chapter as quoted other than a distaste for being on the same team as Beck. It could just be me (which of course doesn't read on whether I'm correct or not) but I can't imagine such a comment questioning the authorship of a chap...
From the final chapter of his new book Cowards, titled "Adapt or Die: The Coming Intelligence Explosion."
The citations for the chapter include: