Caleb Biddulph wrote:
I think it’s very clearly wrong according to standard English grammar rules, but I also think that Eliezer knows that and is using the comma to simulate a conversational speaking cadence. In this case, it’s a pause for effect
I don’t see how you conclude it’s intentional rule breaking when there are frequent errors (around one per 260 words). Here are the errors 13 comma errors, 5 semi-colon errors and 5 other grammar errors (excluding valid stylistic choices like some of the sentence fragments) in 5989 words according to Claude Opus 4.7:
I read the piece carefully and noted the following. I limited the lists to errors that are not considered valid style choices in contemporary editing standards (so I excluded sentence fragments used for rhetorical effect, commas before “and” linking compound predicates, polysyndeton, “that” for people, and logical/British punctuation around quoted matter).
1. Comma errors
- Subject–verb separation: “what that code does**,** is tweak hundreds of billions of inscrutable numbers” — the comma wrongly splits the noun-clause subject (“what that code does”) from its verb (“is”).
- Subject–verb separation: “The thing about building vastly superhuman entities**,** is that you don’t necessarily get unlimited retries…”
- Subject–verb separation: “But what they have already grasped and publicly agreed with**,** is enough to motivate policy.”
- Subject–verb separation: “The utter extermination of humanity**,** would be bad!”
- Subject–verb separation: “To impede one executive, one researcher, or one company**,** does not change where AI is heading.”
- Subject–verb separation: “The sort of conditionally applicable force that could stop everyone from dying to superhuman AI**,** would have to be everywhere and reliable…”
- Subject–verb separation: “That this sentiment is not universal among accelerationists**,** is seen immediately from the protestor in their replies.”
- Unwarranted comma inside a “so … that” construction: “a danger so extreme**,** that belief in it might possibly be used to argue for unlawful force.”
- Unwarranted comma inside a “so … that” construction: “It is so much a clear case for state-approved lawful force**,** that there would be little point in adding any other kind of force…”
- Unwarranted comma inside a “so … that” construction: “…we are so terrified of someone’s possible first use of nuclear weapons**,** that we let them shatter a setup that protects all life on Earth.”
- Comma before a restrictive infinitive of purpose: “it would take a tyrannical world dictatorship**,** to prevent every country from getting nuclear weapons…”
- Comma splice: “The answer is that it doesn’t matter how certain you are**,** killing puppies doesn’t cure cancer.” (Two independent clauses joined by a comma only.)
- Comma before a “that”-content clause: “And finally it did seem wiser to me**,** that all this matter be made very plain…”
2. Semicolon errors
- “…often things that require intelligence**;** like breaking out of containment during testing, or talking a human into committing suicide.” — the semicolon is followed by a prepositional/participial phrase, not an independent clause. Should be a colon, em-dash, or comma.
- “…he wouldn’t be running an AI company**;** so also with the founders of OpenAI and Anthropic.” — the segment after the semicolon is a verbless fragment, not an independent clause.
- “Either it must be impossible for any cognitive system to exist that is advanced beyond a human brain**;** or the many never-challenged problems of controlling machine superintelligence must all prove to be easy.” — a semicolon interrupts the correlative “either … or” pair, and it precedes the coordinator “or” without the “items containing internal commas” rationale.
- “…would have to be everywhere and reliable**;** uniform and universal.” — what follows the semicolon is a bare pair of predicate adjectives, not an independent clause. Should be a comma or dash.
- “And now we have that precedent to show it can be done**;** not easily, not trivially, but it can be done.” — begins with sentence fragments (“not easily, not trivially”); a semicolon requires an independent clause on each side. An em-dash fits.
3. Other objective grammar errors
- “Nearby” used as a preposition: “…a product might kill someone standing nearby the customer…” — “nearby” is an adjective/adverb, not a preposition. Should be “near the customer” (or “standing nearby, like…”).
- Pronoun–antecedent number disagreement: “…buy chips from Nvidia instead, which would stay at full production and sell their full production.” — “Nvidia” is singular; the pronoun should be “its.”
- Pronoun–antecedent number disagreement: “Hitler read the messages himself, instead of having the professional diplomats explain it to him.” — antecedent “messages” is plural; should be “them.”
- Pronoun–antecedent number disagreement: “People don’t like unguessably long lists of possible violence-sources in their lives, for then they cannot predict it and avoid it.” — both candidate antecedents (“lists,” “violence-sources”) are plural; should be “them.”
- Missing subject after “as”: “…resulted in Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, as then in fact provoked a massive international response.” — the relative/subordinate clause has no subject. Needs “which then in fact provoked…” (or “as it then in fact provoked…”).
A few items I considered and did not flag as objective errors because they are defensible stylistic choices today: the many commas before “and” joining compound predicates (rhythm); sentence fragments beginning with “Unless…,” “If quoted accurately.,” “Sam Altman too.”; “that” used for persons (“any madman that might…”); and punctuation placed outside closing quotation marks (logical/British style).