Not sure what he means by "loose qualitative conclusions".

Some context:

In this case, the best we can do is use the Weak Inside View - visualizing the causal process - to produce loose qualitative conclusions about only those issues where there seems to be lopsided support.

He means that, because the inside view is weak, it cannot predict exactly how powerful an AI would foom, exactly how long it would take for an AI to foom, exactly what it might first do after the foom, exactly how long it will take for the knowledge necessary to make a foom, and suchlike. Note how three of those things I listed are quantitative. So instead of strong, quantitative predictions like those, he sticks to weak general qualitative ones: "AI go foom."

One thing which makes me worry that something is "surface", is when it involves generalizing a level N feature across a shift in level N-1 causes.

Argh...I am getting the impression that it was a really bad idea to start reading this at this point. I have no clue what he is talking about.

He means, in this example anyway, that the reasoning "historical trends usually continue" applied to Moore's Law doesn't work when Moore's Law itself creates something that affects Moore's Law. In order to figure out what happens, you have to go deeper than "historical trends usually continue".

I don't know what the law of 'Accelerating Change' is and what exogenous means and what ontologically fundamental means and why not even such laws can break down beyond a certain point.

I didn't know what exogenous means when I read this either, but I didn't need to to understand. (I deigned to look it up. It means generated by the environment, not generated by organisms. Not a difficult concept.) Ontologically fundamental is a term we use on LW all the time; it means at the base level of reality, like quarks and electrons. The Law of Accelerating Change is one of Kurzweil's inventions; it's his claim that technological change accelerates itself.

Oh well

Indeed, if you're not even going to try to understand, this is the correct response, I suppose.

Incidentally, I disapprove of your using the open thread as your venue for this rather than commenting on the original posts asking for explanations. And giving up on understanding rather than asking for explanations.