If he's a clown what part of his theory is the circus?

Are you saying that superintelligence is impossible?

Are you saying that the alignment problem will certainty be solved before superintelligence emerges?

Are you saying that a superintelligent being connected to the internet would be unable to gain resources such as GPU time, money, and social influence?

Are you saying that a superintelligent being would for some reason be incapable of deception and cunning?

Are you saying that a superintelligent being would necessarily regard human flourishing as a prime objective to be prized above it's own goals and ambitions?

If it's really just doomerism we should be able to point to the flaws in his argument instead of making ad hominem attacks.

>Are you saying that superintelligence is impossible?

Yes, end of the discussion, I don't debate metaphysics with crackheads, sociology with psychopaths or geography with flat earthers, or very bad science fiction with yudkowski. Going on about "exposing the flaws in the argument" of the crackhead just means wasting your time.