Acknowledging this does not need to involve conceding any major kind of argument.
I think it kind of does concede the major argument to a wise engineer once they look at it from that angle, which is why their conversation goes to desperate lengths to change the subject.
Sometimes humanity does get things right on the first critical try. I think e.g. Paul gets the point about first critical try, but has models of the world that consistently predict that there are ways to get around the difficulties associated with that. I disagree with him on those points, but I don’t feel like I have a slam-dunk response to his models.
I do think it’s a sufficient argument for “this is a really high-stakes situation and of at least substantial difficulty”, but like, most people in the field are on board with that? And my sense is even most people at the labs.
I think it kind of does concede the major argument to a wise engineer once they look at it from that angle, which is why their conversation goes to desperate lengths to change the subject.
Sometimes humanity does get things right on the first critical try. I think e.g. Paul gets the point about first critical try, but has models of the world that consistently predict that there are ways to get around the difficulties associated with that. I disagree with him on those points, but I don’t feel like I have a slam-dunk response to his models.
I do think it’s a sufficient argument for “this is a really high-stakes situation and of at least substantial difficulty”, but like, most people in the field are on board with that? And my sense is even most people at the labs.