I don't actualy think your post was hostile, but I think I get where deepthoughtlife is coming from. At the least, I can share about how I felt reading this post and point out to why, since you seem keen on avoiding the negative side. Btw I don't think you avoid causing any frustration in readers, they are too diverse, so don't worry too much about it either.

The title of the piece is strongly worded and there's no epistimic status disclaimer to state this is exploratory, so I actually came in expecting much stronger arguments. Your post is good as an exposition of your thoughts and conversation started, but it's not a good counter argument to NAH imo, so shouldn't be worded as such. Like deepthoughtlife, I feel your post is confused re NAH, which is totally fine when stated as such, but a bit grating when I came in expecting more rigor or knowledge of NAH. 

Here's a reaction to the first part : 
- in "Systems must have similar observational apparatus" you argue that different apparatus lead to different abstractions and claim a blind deaf person is such an example, yet in practice blind deaf people can manipulate all the abstractions others can (with perhaps a different inner representation), that's what general intelligence is about. You can check out this wiki page and video for some of how it's done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadoma . The point is that all the abstractions can be understood and must be understood by a general intelligence trying to act effectively, and in practice Helen Keler could learn to speak by using other senses than hearing, in the same way we learn all of physics despite limited native instruments. 

I think I had similar reactions to other parts, feeling they were missing the point about NAH and some background assumptions.

Thanks for posting!

Putting this short rant here for no particularly good reason but I dislike that people claim constraints here or there in a way where I guess their intended meaning is only that "the derivative with respect to that input is higher than for the other inputs".

On factory floors there exist hard constraints, the throughput is limited by the slowest machine (when everything has to go through this). The AI Safety world is obviously not like that. Increase funding and more work gets done, increase talent and more work gets done. None are hard constraints.

If I'm right that people are really only claiming the weak version, then I'd like to see somewhat more backing to their claims, especially if you say "definitely". Since none are constraints, the derivatives could plausibly be really close to one another. In fact, they kind of have to be, because there are smart optimizers who are deciding where to spend their funding and trying to actively manage the proportion of money sent to field building (getting more talent) vs direct work. 

Interesting thoughts, ty. 

A difficulty to common understanding I see here is that you're talking of "good" or "bad" paragraphs in the absolute, but didn't particularly define "good" or "bad" paragraph by some objective standard, so you're relying on your own understanding of what's good or bad. If you were defining good or bad relatively, you'd look for a 100 paragraphs, and post the worse 10 as bad. I'd be interested in seeing what were the worse paragraphs you found, some 50 percentile ones, and what were the best, then I'd tell you if I have the same absolute standards as you have.

Enjoyed this post.

Fyi, from the front page I just hovered this post "The shallow bench" and was immediately spoiled on Project Hail Mary (which I had started listening to, but didn't get far into). Maybe add some spoiler tag or warning directly after the title?

Without removing from the importance of getting the default right, and with some deliberate daring to feature creep, I think adding a customization feature (select colour) in personal profiles is relatively low effort and maintenance, so would solve the accessibility problem.

There's tacit knowledge in bay rationalist conversation norms that I'm discovering and thinking about, here's an observation and related thought. (I put the example later after the generalisation because that's my preferred style, feel free to read the other way). 

Willingness to argue righteously and hash out things to the end, repeated over many conversations, makes it more salient when you're going for a dead end argument. This salience can inspire you to do argue more concisely and to the point over time. 
Going to the end of things generates ground data on which to update your models of arguing and conversation paths, instead of leaving things unanswered. 
So, though it's skilful to know when not to "waste" time on details and unimportant disagreements, the norm of "frequently enough going through til everyone agrees on things" seems profoundly virtuous. 

Short example from today, I say "good morning". They point out it's not morning (it's 12:02). I comment about how 2 minutes is not that much. They argue that 2 minutes is definitely more than zero and that's the important cut-off. 
I realize that "2 minutes is not that much" was not my true rebuttal, that this next token my brain generated was mostly defensive reasoning rather than curious exploration of why they disagreed with my statement. Next time I could instead note they're using "morning" to have a different definition/central cluster than I, appreciate that they pointed this out, and decide if I want to explore this discrepancy or not. 

Many things don't make sense if you're just doing them for local effect, but do when you consider long term gains. (something something naive consequentialism vs virtue ethics flavored stuff)

I don't strongly disagree but do weakly disagree on some points so I guess I'll answer

Re first- if you buy into automated alignment work by human level AGI, then trying to align ASI now seems less worth it. The strongest counterargument to this I see is that "human level AGI" is impossible to get with our current understanding, as it will be superhuman in some things and weirdly bad at others.

Re second- disagreements might be nitpicking on "few other approaches" vs "few currently pursued approaches". There are probably a bunch of things that would allow fundamental understanding if they panned out (various agent foundations agendas, probably safe ai agendas like davidad's), though one can argue they won't apply to deep learning or are less promising to explore than SLT

I don't think your second footnote sufficiently addresses the large variance in 3D visualization abilities (note that I do say visualization, which includes seeing 2D video in your mind of a 3D object and manipulating that smoothly), and overall I'm not sure where you're getting at if you don't ground your post in specific predictions about what you expect people can and cannot do thanks to their ability to visualize 3D. 

You might be ~conceptually right that our eyes see "2D" and add depth, but *um ackshually*, two eyes each receiving 2D data means you've received 4D input (using ML standards, you've got 4 input dimensions per time unit, 5 overall in your tensor). It's very redundant, and that redundancy mostly allows you to extract depth using a local algo, which allows you to create a 3D map in your mental representation. I don't get why you claim we don't have a 3D map at the end.

Back to concrete predictions, are there things you expect a strong human visualizer couldn't do? To give intuition I'd say a strong visualizer has at least the equivalent visualizing, modifying and measuring capabilities of solidworks/blender in their mind. You tell one to visualize a 3D object they know, and they can tell you anything about it.

It seems to me the most important thing you noticed is that in real life we don't that often see past the surface of things (because the spectrum of light we see doesn't penetrate most material) and thus most people don't know the inside of 3D things very well, but that can be explained by lack of exposure rather than inability to understand 3D. 

Fwiw looking  at the spheres I guessed an approx 2.5 volume ratio. I'm curious, if you visualized yourself picking up these two spheres, imagining them made of a dense metal, one after the other, could you feel one is 2.3 times heavier than the previous?

I'll give fake internet points to whoever actually follows the instructions and posts photographic proof.

The naming might be confusing because pivotal act sounds like a one time action, but in most cases getting to a stable world without any threat from AI requires constant pivotal processes. This makes almost all the destructive approaches moot (and they're probably already bad for ethical concerns and many others already discussed) because you'll make yourself a pariah.

The most promising venue for a pivotal act/pivotal process that I know of is doing good research so that ASI risks are known and proven, doing good outreach and education so most world leaders and decision makers are well aware of this, and helping setup good governance worldwide to monitor and limit the development of AGI and ASI until we can control it.