Maybe The Real Superintelligent AI Is Extremely Smart Computers

Rebuts Ted Chiang's Buzzfeed piece 'The Real Danger Isn't AI, It's Runaway Capitalism.' Scott grants the real similarity (both AI and capitalism are non-human optimizers that pursue a goal while ignoring human values -- the general 'optimization process' idea) but skewers using an ANALOGY as EVIDENCE against AI risk: 'the REAL black hole is the Pentagon budget' was never meant to settle whether black holes exist. He flags Chiang's move as projection-hunting -- a known brain-bug that, as in his psychiatric practice, generates a plausible story for ANY resemblance -- and parodies it with a sustained kabbalistic riff (black holes = Einstein projecting resource-hogging; chain reactions = nuclear physicists; Watson & Crick = intertwining DNA, with Rosalind Franklin as epigenetics), noting Unsong was literally about this. Plus: AI risk originated with Bostrom/Yudkowsky/Hawking/Chalmers, not Silicon Valley, so the projection frame collapses; cf. 'The Real Problem Isn't Global Warming, It's Hollywood Harassment.'

Quality 73 · Strong. Strong, upper (73). A sharp, funny, effective rebuttal whose real point -- scientific analogy is not evidence, and resemblance-hunting/projection is a plausible-nonsense generator -- is genuinely clarifying, delivered via a devastating kabbalistic parody. Capped below Excellent as a reactive takedown of one article.

Claude’s paradigm shift 50 · Moderate. Moderate (50). The analogy-isn't-evidence and projection-as-brain-bug points are sharp but build on Scott's prior defense-mechanism writing and Unsong's kabbalah conceit.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 -- minor/within-blog. An AI-risk-discourse rebuttal; within-discourse, no material footprint.

Humor 2/5 · Man of One Study. 2 -- gate passes as a SERIOUS rebuttal with genuinely NOTABLE, sustained humor: the multi-example kabbalistic-projection parody (black holes/Einstein, chain reactions, DNA, the Hawking aside) is a deliberate, defining comedic set-piece, not ambient wit (the serious-piece-notable-humor=2 category). Not 3: it carries a real epistemic thesis and isn't primarily comedic.