When people say things like "intelligence doesn't exist" or "race doesn't exist", charitably, they don't mean that the folk concepts of "intelligence" or "race" are utterly meaningless. I'd bet they still use the words, or synonyms for it, in informal contexts, analogously to how we use informally "strength". (E.g. "He's very smart"; "They are an interrracial couple"; "She's stronger than she looks"). What they object to is to treating them as a scientifically precise concepts that denote intrinsic, context-independent characteristics. I agree with gjm that your parody arguments against "strength" seem at least superficially plausible if read in the same way than the opponents of "race" and "intelligence" intend theirs.

Suppose backward time travel is possible. If so, it's probably of the variety where you can't change the past (i.e. Novikov self-consistent), because that's mathematically simpler than time travel which can modify the past. In almost all universes where people develop time travel, they'll counterfactualize themselves by deliberately or accidentally altering the past, i.e. they'll "cause" their universe-instance to not exist in the first place, because that universe would be inconsistent if it existed. Therefore in most universes that allow time travel and actually exist, almost all civilizations will fail to develop time travel, which might happen because those civilizations die out before they become sufficiently technologically advanced.

Perhaps this is the Great Filter. It would look like the Great Filter is nuclear war or disease or whatever, but actually time-consistency anthropics are "acausing" those things.

This assumes that either most civilizations would discover time travel before strong AI (in the absence of anthropic effects), or strong AI does not rapidly lead to a singleton. Otherwise, the resulting singleton would probably recognize that trying to modify the past is acausally risky, so the civilization would expand across space without counterfactualizing itself, so time-consistency couldn't be the Great Filter. They would probably also seek to colonize as much of the universe as they could, to prevent less cautious civilizations from trying time-travel and causing their entire universe to evaporate in a puff of inconsistency.

This also assumes that a large fraction of universes allow time travel. Otherwise, most life would just end up concentrated in those universes that don't allow time travel.

Experts are fallacious, thus you can't trust them

One very common example of this I see abused all the time is the argument in the form of "(X) was wrong about (Y) so therefore experts are worthless!"

I think the "Use surviving particles for ever slower calculations" is probably the most likely solution, assuming an empty universe/ heat death scenario. It was shown, I believe, that based on the expected rate of the expansion of the univese, a thinking being could have an subjectively infinite long period of time that way.

The converse is also possible; in a "big crunch" scenario, you would have a finite period of time, but the amount of energy available in any given volume of space would increase at an accelerating rate and approach infinity, so a being would (in theory) be able to think more and more quickly as the amount of energy available increases, and you could also experience an infinite amount of subjective time within an objectively finite time period.

(Of course, a "big crunch" seems very unlikely now, based on what we know of dark energy.)

I could half replaced Detroit with (parts of) say Chicago or LA. Detroit is just more dramatic since the dysfunction took over the whole city.

Musk's accomplishments don't necessarily make him an expert on the demonology of AI's. But his track record suggests that he has a better informed and organized way of thinking about the potentials of technology than Carrico's.

Would I, epistemically speaking, be better off adopting the beliefs hold by all those who have recently voiced their worries about AI risks? If I did that then I would end up believing that I was living in a simulation, in a mathematical universe, and that within my lifetime, thanks to radical life extension, I could hope to rent an apartment on a seastead on the high seas of a terraformed Mars. Or something along these lines...

The common ground between those people seems to be that they all hold weird beliefs, beliefs that someone who has not been indoctrinated...cough...educated by the sequences has a hard time to take seriously.

Empirically we seem to be converging on the idea that the expansion of the universe continues forever (see Wikipedia for a summary of the possibilities), but it's not totally slam-dunk yet. If there is a Big Crunch, then that puts a hard limit on the time available.

If - as we currently believe - that doesn't happen, then the universe will cool over time, until it gets too cold (=too short of negentropy) to sustain any given process. A superintelligence would obviously see this coming, and have plenty of time to prepare - we're talking hundreds of trillions of years before star formation ceases. It might be able to switch to lower-power processes to continue in attenuated form, but eventually it'll run out.

This is, of course, assuming our view of physics is basically right and there aren't any exotic possibilities like punching a hole through to a new, younger universe.

a place where patriarchy has completely collapsed, say present day Detroit

How did patriarchy collapse in Detroit, exactly? This is a city looted to the ground by corrupt bureaucrats run amok, a failed-state kind of phenomenon. I don't see gender politics playing any major role here.

So, in a community where a majority of the people believe in a Christian idea of morality and only co-operate with other people with that Christian ideal of morality (strict sexual rules, go to Church every Sunday, ect), then wouldn't your system say that the majority is behaving morally?

And, conversely, that the minority of people in that society with a more humanist value system, who the majority will not co-operate with because they disagree with their value system, will therefore be defined as less moral under that system?

For that matter, if nobody is willing to co-operate with someone because their face looks ugly by the standards of most of the community, then your system would declare the ugly person to also be immoral.

You'll have to expand on how exactly this would be beneficial to the original AI.