Doom arguments usually need the systems we actually build to achieve radical capability while preserving misaligned and, crucially, completely stupid goals.
This isn’t a random sentence, it’s a main piece of context you provide for why you are discussing the main thesis of the post. As such, it’s a useful sentence that readers use to understand what you’re saying. But since your statement seems false according to the informed understanding of the meaning of the paperclip example, it raises ambiguity; perhaps you’re simply uninformed, or perhaps you meant something nonobvious by the phrase. Hence asking you to clarify.
You wrote
This isn’t a random sentence, it’s a main piece of context you provide for why you are discussing the main thesis of the post. As such, it’s a useful sentence that readers use to understand what you’re saying. But since your statement seems false according to the informed understanding of the meaning of the paperclip example, it raises ambiguity; perhaps you’re simply uninformed, or perhaps you meant something nonobvious by the phrase. Hence asking you to clarify.