(I should have just said this, I didn't mean to be leading sorry). 

I'm going for: people who understand as well as you understand it, or such that you're confident they could give a summary that you'd be ok with others reading.

You said above you've heard no strong counterarguments, it might be good to put that in proportion to the amount of people who you're confident have a good grasp of your idea. 

Obviously it has to start at 0, but if I were keeping track of feedback on my idea, I'd be keenly interested in this number. 

How many people understand your argument? 

Contemporary example meme: Clankerism. It doesn't seek to deny AI moral patienthood, rather it semi-ironically uses racist rhetoric toward AI, denying their in-group status instead. Its fitness as meme is due mostly to the contrast between current capabilities and the anticipation (among the broader rationalist, tech-positive and e/acc spheres) of AI moral patienthood. This contrast makes the use or racist rhetoric toward them absurd: there's no need to out-group something that doesn't have moral patienthood. 

However, I think this meme has the potential to be robust to capability-increase, see this example of youtuber JREG using clankerist rhetoric alongside genuine distress anticipating human displacement/disempowerment. 

He's not denying the possibility of AI capabilities surpassing human ones. He's reacting with fear and hate (perhaps with some level of irony) toward human obsolescence.

What Are The Problems

There are a few distinct phenomena we have reason to worry about:

Might these not be separate symptoms of some phenomena, not necessarily well categorised by your dot points? 

In point 1, is identification with chimps an analogy for illustrative purposes, or a base case from which you're generalising?

I infer StanislavKrym's reply isn't what you're looking for. Could you explain why? It's not obvious to me

I may have experienced this. I was reading a recent discussion about AGI doom, where Eliezer Yudkowsky and others were debating whether one could use aligned human-level AGI to solve alignment before strong ASI is developed. 

After reading this thread, I went for a walk and thought about it. 

• The no arguments seemed straightforward and elegant in comparison to the yes arguments, which seemed contingent on on lots of little details.
• Straightforward and elegant ideas often represent reality better in my experience. Is that why yes seems more convincing?
• Perhaps instead it's because the yes arguments fit in my head better
• But didn't I engage with the arguments? I read them, tried to understand, and remained unconvinced. 

I still haven't resolved this. Did I do the dumb thing?

Discussion heavily using a metaphor about dragons, from the last 3 months, does anyone recall? I looked briefly.

Future of life institute open letter:

We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is

1. broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and
2. strong public buy-in.

Cosign here

I would hypothesize that statistically the level of social grace of a person tends to stay largely the same over the course of their life

To be more precise, it's that their social grace relative to their peers would be constant. Assume this is true. Now your hypothesis to explain this would be

I think that lack of social grace is strongly related to ASD, which is relatively immutable

Counter hypothesis: Social grace is learnable. When you do or say something, people around you can signal positively or negatively. Given enough signals, you can figure out what parts of your words/actions elicit positive or negative responses. 

Then why do some people plateau in social grace? 

• In relatively uncalibrated individuals the training data is more costly to acquire: they're relatively uncalibrated, so more likely to elicit negative response than their peers.
• If you accumulate enough negative signals, then you're out of the tribe.
• Thus they've less opportunities to learn, either because they avoided many, or were ejected from their peer group.
• miscalibration gets relatively worse over time: their peers improve faster.

This hypothesis would explain some ASD people's consistent lack of social grace, even given lots of potential opportunities to learn, over a long time, even if they were equally perceptive of social signals. 

What do you think? 

If you use the "suppose ..." feature in a proof, you need to make sure the supposition isn't false in context of the proof