I declare Crocker's rules. If you have more criticism, please share it.
1. True. I've written a bit about the disagreement in other posts, but it isn't clear here. I'll fix it.
2. I thoroughly disagree.
- General knowledge and common knowledge are different. 99% of the community could have strong foundations on formal proof systems, it wouldn't be enough if they didn't care to include it because of the remaining 1%. Or because they didn't know that 99% had such foundations.
- Following the previous point, it wouldn't matter that it is common knowledge if it isn't found in the articles/posts. And it isn't found.
- I have been following the community, and even if they are "more literate in formal logic, math" than most people (I don't know what you mean by "could reasonably be expected"), this is still not enough for the problems at hand.
3. Indeed, this is only the prelude. Also:
- These "buzzwords" are included for people who know the fields. For people outside these fields, they might sound like buzzwords, even though they aren't. (For any sensible definition of buzzword.)
- I thought it was obvious why formal logics are relevant to AGI.
This is helpful. Even though I disagree with many of your points, it is helpful to see that there are disagreements where I haven't expected them.