If you are on Paul/Quentin side, “lots of slack” would be enough to concede, but they do not think there’s lots of slack.
If you are on Eliezer/Nate side, “little slack” is far from enough to concede: it’s about whether humanity can and will do something with that slack.
So this is not a crux.
Nevertheless, this concept could help prevent a very common failure mode in the debate.
Namely, at any point in the debate, either side could ask “Are you arguing that there is lots/little slack, that we are willing/unwilling to use that slack, or that we are able/unable to use that slack?”, which I expect could clear some amount of talking past each other.
If you are on Paul/Quentin side, “lots of slack” would be enough to concede, but they do not think there’s lots of slack.
If you are on Eliezer/Nate side, “little slack” is far from enough to concede: it’s about whether humanity can and will do something with that slack.
So this is not a crux.
Nevertheless, this concept could help prevent a very common failure mode in the debate.
Namely, at any point in the debate, either side could ask “Are you arguing that there is lots/little slack, that we are willing/unwilling to use that slack, or that we are able/unable to use that slack?”, which I expect could clear some amount of talking past each other.