If you believe Yudkowsky's argument that super intelligence is inherently powerful dangerous, then those things sorta follow as conclusions.

There are games that work this way! Like chess performance pretty much scales with comp power. But there are also games that don't work this way (checkers).

To be fair, "not immediately gaslighting people who voted for you" is a solidly lefty tactic now.

Specifically, it has happened 0 times.

Even still, however, this doesn't tell us what we really need to know: how much does your risk of cancer (or other disease) increase when you consume the protein powder compared to not?

It's worth pointing out again how nonsensical this is; any amount of lead is concerning because it causes disease! Making up an arbitrary standard like this doesn't communicate anything useful.

But instead they get into this bizarre mess of trying to categorize individual supplements as "concerning" or not, which the companies (rightfully) pointed out doesn't have any scientific backing

A much better way to communicate this is: most of the time standard serving of protein powder contains about 1/10th to 1/5 of an average adult's daily lead intake. That's a lot! And a few brands are much higher; a few will literally double your lead exposure if you take them everyday.

I'm not saying I know better, just that it seems like is equally a geopolitical forecast as a technical one and that experts in that field seem weirdly underrepresented.

Kinda funny how ACIP--whose sole purpose is to provide advice on vaccine use--is just like "eh you decide"