<p><pre><code> Let’s start with a passage from the essay where Marc is 100% objectively wrong, as a matter of pure logic.
[...]
If you argue that AI won’t kill humanity, while simultaneously arguing that “AI will kill humanity” is a category error, your logic is mistaken. Period. End of story.
</code></pre>
This isn't the airtight argument the author thinks it is.<p>It <i>is</i> logically consistent to dismiss an "AI doomer" claim by positing it's based on a category error. That doesn't mean you argue for the exact logical negation of the claims, so you don't automatically grant that it wasn't a category error to begin with.<p><pre><code> Here are examples of what actual category errors look like:
- “The number two is blue.”
</code></pre>
There is a broader, and arguably more common, definition for "category mistake". A statement can be a "category mistake" or not depending on the context. Quoting from <<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/</a>>:<p><pre><code> For example, an utterance of ‘That is green’ seems infelicitous in a context where the demonstrative refers (or appears to refer) to the number two, but entirely innocuous in a context in which it refers to a pen.</code></pre>