"[A] common English expletive which may be shortened to the euphemism bull or the initialism B.S."

(Self-review.) I claim that this post is significant for articulating a solution to the mystery of disagreement (why people seem to believe different things, in flagrant violation of Aumann's agreement theorem): much of the mystery dissolves if a lot of apparent "disagreements" are actually disguised conflicts. The basic idea isn't particularly original, but I'm proud of the synthesis and writeup. Arguing that the distinction between deception and bias is less decision-relevant than commonly believed seems like an improvement over hang-wringing over where the boundary is.

Some have delusional optimism about [...]

I'm usually not a fan of tone-policing, but in this case, I feel motivated to argue that this is more effective if you drop the word "delusional." The rhetorical function of saying "this demo is targeted at them, not you" is to reassure the optimist that pessimists are committed to honestly making their case point by point, rather than relying on social proof and intimidation tactics to push a predetermined "AI == doom" conclusion. That's less credible if you imply that you have warrant to dismiss all claims of the form "Humans and institutions will make reasonable decisions about how to handle AI development and deployment because X" as delusional regardless of the specific X.

I don't think Vance is e/acc. He has said positive things about open source, but consider that the context was specifically about censorship and political bias in contemporary LLMs (bolding mine):

There are undoubtedly risks related to AI. One of the biggest:

A partisan group of crazy people use AI to infect every part of the information economy with left wing bias. Gemini can't produce accurate history. ChatGPT promotes genocidal concepts.

The solution is open source

If Vinod really believes AI is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon, why does ChatGPT have such an insane political bias? If you wanted to promote bipartisan efforts to regulate for safety, it's entirely counterproductive.

Any moderate or conservative who goes along with this obvious effort to entrench insane left-wing businesses is a useful idiot.

I'm not handing out favors to industrial-scale DEI bullshit because tech people are complaining about safety.

The words I've bolded indicate that Vance is at least peripherally aware that the "tech people [...] complaining about safety" are a different constituency than the "DEI bullshit" he deplores. If future developments or rhetorical innovations persuade him that extinction risk is a serious concern, it seems likely that he'd be on board with "bipartisan efforts to regulate for safety."

The next major update can be Claude 4.0 (and Gemini 2.0) and after that we all agree to use actual normal version numbering rather than dating?

Date-based versions aren't the most popular, but it's not an unheard of thing that Anthropic just made up: see CalVer, as contrasted to SemVer. (For things that change frequently in small ways, it's convenient to just slap the date on it rather than having to soul-search about whether to increment the second or the third number.)

'You acted unwisely,' I cried, 'as you see
By the outcome.' He calmly eyed me:
'When choosing the course of my action,' said he,
'I had not the outcome to guide me.'

—Ambrose Bierce

The claim is pretty clearly intended to be about relative material, not absolute number of pawns: in the end position of the second game, you have three pawns left and Stockfish has two; we usually don't describe this as Stockfish having given up six pawns. (But I agree that it's easier to obtain resources from an adversary that values them differently, like if Stockfish is trying to win and you're trying to capture pawns.)

This is a difficult topic (in more ways than one). I'll try to do a better job of addressing it in a future post.

Was my "An important caveat" parenthetical paragraph sufficient, or do you think I should have made it scarier?

Thanks, I had copied the spelling from part of the OP, which currently says "Arnalt" eight times and "Arnault" seven times. I've now edited my comment (except the verbatim blockquote).