I'm worried that people won't reflect well and so (1) they'll decide to use the cosmic endowment for something mediocre and/or (2) they'll have a catastrophic failure in some of {decision theory, bargaining, dealing with threats, reasoning about simulators, acausal trade (including ECL etc.)}. Some angles:
* Current AI systems are way better at science/engineering than philosophy. Maybe even ASI won't solve philosophy (in particular, maybe there's not a sufficiently good training signal to train super-philosophers via ML).
* By default almost everyone is and will be overconfident in their intuitions on philosophy/metaethics/axiology. By default almost nobody will "suspect that they are confused about morality, and [be] eager or willing to apply reason and deliberation to find out what their real values are, or to correct their moral beliefs."
* Long horizon agency / strategic competence approximately does not exist among humans, even the smartest ones. And maybe it's necessary.
* It may be natural for powerful people to use AIs for instrumental stuff (acquiring power, inventing technology, building industrial capacity) but not terminal stuff (axiology, etc.). Some angles:
* If they asked an enlightened philosophy ASI about its views and it replied straightforwardly, they would think it sounded crazy.
* In general the ASIs will say crazy-sounding things about cosmology, religion, etc.
* They will have seen other people "reflect" with "help" from ASIs and they think those people now have crazy views, talk about living in a simulation, etc. and they don't want to end up like that.
* @habryka probably disagrees. Idk, it's so easy for me to imagine that Elon (or almost anyone else) would listen/defer to AI on the instrumental stuff but not reflect on philosophy/axiology.
* Maybe there will have been a period where superpersuaders went around getting people to adopt new ideologies—maybe even by saying true but filtered things—and so people develop stro