I’ve read the paper, and while it mentions “intelligence explosion” a few times, they seem to be keeping that terminology taboo when it comes to the meat of the argument, which is what I think you were asking for.
Yes, this is only a cosmetic issue with the paper, really.
I think most people use “intelligence explosion” to mean something more specific than just exponential growth.
Sure: explosions do also have to wind up going rapidly to qualify as such.
Yes, this is only a cosmetic issue with the paper, really.
Sure: explosions do also have to wind up going rapidly to qualify as such.