Why would a rational person expend any effort to "defend" a belief? Shouldn't all such effort be spent exposing one's beliefs to potential refutation and weighing alternatives? Otoh, if we substitute the word "faith" for "belief" then we've got the answer to your question about rationality right there.
Would a Christian (or any other ) superintelligence also be able to remove heterosexual urges? If not, I don't think there's much hope for removing homosexual urges.
Why would the same sort of AIs that are doing all the bad things that people would be looking to shield themselves from be willing to genuinely help people shield themselves? In this doomsday scenario isn't it more likely that these supposedly-shielding AIs would, in fact, be manipulating those expecting to be shielded for the AI's own purposes? This seems very similar to fake apparent alignment.
Well, if you're already ignoring history, science, and chronology why stop?
While you could give your internal AI wide indiscriminate access, it seems neither necessary nor wise to do so. It seems likely you could get at least 80% of the potential benefit via no more than 20% of the access breadth. I would want my AI to tell me when it thinks it could help me more with greater access so that I can decide whether the requested additional access is reasonable.
Could another factor impeding broad spectrum research be that the two big broad spectrum approaches in use today, chemotherapy and radiation, are both pretty brutal to the patient and many people believe they'll be looked back on as barbaric in the future? That's not to say that future broad spectrum treatments necessarily have to share these characteristics, but there's sort of a "guilt by association" problem.
That still leaves the question of how the reader is to distinguish a sound (speech) from a description of sounds.
Run-on refers primarily to topic drift, not word count. You can have a fairly short run-on sentence where the end of the sentence is talking about something different than the beginning. Frequent use of "and" between clauses is a clue.
I don't think children have any more difficulty learning to speak English than other languages. The difficulty comes in learning to spell in writing and, to a lesser extent, learning to pronounce written words when writing. Btw, there's actually much more regularity in English spelling/pronunciation than may appear, and than is routinely taught. Much of the "weirdness" is the result of historical processes which are fairly regular in themselves, once you know the rules.
Christians are an out group? Tell that to any non-Christian living in the American South.