I think you’re misrepresenting the extent to which this has been discussed on lesswrong already. I participated in most of that discussion and nothing in your post is news at all (that overstates it a little) surprising, or a strategic update, for me. Use the search function.
You are right in saying that the UAP topic has been discussed on Lesswrong. I acknowledge this in the introduction of my post. Could you indicate which post you want me to find by “using the search function”?
I also think it is unfair to say that nothing in my post is worth updating over. Has there been any other document where serious politicians so strongly signal towards a connection of UAPs and non-human intelligence?
I think you’re misrepresenting the extent to which this has been discussed on lesswrong already. I participated in most of that discussion and nothing in your post is
news at all(that overstates it a little) surprising, or a strategic update, for me. Use the search function.You are right in saying that the UAP topic has been discussed on Lesswrong. I acknowledge this in the introduction of my post. Could you indicate which post you want me to find by “using the search function”?
I also think it is unfair to say that nothing in my post is worth updating over. Has there been any other document where serious politicians so strongly signal towards a connection of UAPs and non-human intelligence?
Yes, I said “for me”.