Eliezer,

I'm not suggesting you fail to pass on the warning. I'm suggesting you make sure the warning is placed in an accurate, non-caricatured picture of the scientific traditions you are criticizing.

For example, you talk about Science "not being strict enough". The notion of "scientific" that I described in my comments (which is one of several competing, half-articulated modes of science in which students are sometimes trained) is in some ways *too* strict; it correctly throws out Penrose and detailed 2050 predictions, and it unfortunately also throws useful, simple hypotheses like "Most conceivable AIs would, if created, destroy the world."

More accurate, less singular models of science would make your points easier to digest in some ways (because more accurate). More accurate models of science would also make your points less crackpot-sounding, but you may be right that I should ignore that aspect.