The highest rated comment to your vegetarianism post and your response demonstrate my general point here. You acknowledge that the points could have been in your main essay, but your responses are why you don't find them to be good objections to your framework.

I think there's something to be said for making the essay too long by analyzing absolutely every consideration that could ever be brought up. There's dozens of additional considerations that I could have elaborated on at length in my essay (the utilitarianism of it, other meta-ethics, free range, whether nonhuman animal lives actually aren't worth living, logic of the larder, wild animal suffering, etc.) that it would be impossible to cover them all. Therefore, I preferred them to come up in the comments.

But generally, should I hedge my claims more in light of more possible counterarguments? Yeah, probably.

~

That seems initially unlikely to me. What do you find particularly novel about your Speculative Cause post that distinguishes it from previous Less Wrong discussions, where this has been the du jour topic and the crux of whether MIRI is useful as a donation target?

I did read a large list of essays in this realm prior to writing this essay. A lot played on the decision theory angle and the concern with experts, but none mentioned the potential for biases in favor of x-risk or the history of commonsense.

~

a higher quality response than calling the AI-safety conclusion commonsense.

To be fair, the essay did include quite a lot more extended argument than just that. I do agree I could have engaged better with other essays on the site, though. I was mostly concerned with issues of length and amount of time spent, but maybe I erred too much on the side of caution.