I've created a video as an intuition pump for the Orthogonality Thesis and I'd like feedback from the community. Here is the transcript: 

Now, if you ask: Why would something so clever want something so stupid, that would lead to death or hell for its creator? you are missing the basics of the orthogonality thesis

Any goal can be combined with any level of intelligence, the 2 concepts are orthogonal to each-other.

Intelligence is about capability, it is the power to predict accurately future states and what outcomes will result from what actions. It says nothing about values, about what results to seek, what to desire.

An intelligent AI originally designed to discover medical drugs can generate molecules for chemical weapons with just a flip of a switch in its parameters.
Its intelligence can be used for either outcome, the decision is just a free variable, completely decoupled from its ability to do one or the other. You wouldn’t call the AI that instantly produced 40,000 novel recipes for deadly neuro-toxins stupid.

Taken on their own, There is no such thing as stupid goals or stupid desires.

You could call a person stupid if the actions she decides to take fail to satisfy a desire, but not the desire itself.

You Could actually also call a goal stupid, but to do that you need to look at its causal chain: Does the goal lead to failure or success of its parent instrumental goal? If it leads to failure, you could call a goal stupid, but if it leads to success, you can not.

You could judge instrumental goals relative to each-other, but when you reach the end of the chain, such adjectives don’t even make sense for terminal goals. The deepest desires can never be stupid or clever.

For example, adult humans may seek pleasure from sexual relations, even if they don’t want to give birth to children. To an alien, this behaviour may seem irrational or even stupid. But, is this desire stupid? Is the goal to have sexual intercourse, without the goal for reproduction a stupid one or a clever one? No, it’s neither.
The most intelligent person on earth and the most stupid person on earth can have that same desire. These concepts are orthogonal to each-other.

We could program an AGI with the terminal goal to count the number of planets in the observable universe with very high precision. If the AI comes up with a plan that achieves that goal with 99.9999… twenty nines % probability of success, but causes human extinction in the process, it’s meaningless to call the act of killing humans stupid, because its plan simply worked, it had maximum effectiveness at reaching its terminal goal and killing the humans was a side-effect of just one of the maximum effective steps in that plan.
If you put biased human interests aside, it should be obvious that a plan with one less 9 that did not cause extinction, would be stupid compared to this one, from the perspective of the problem solver optimiser AGI.

So, it should be clear now: the instrumental goals AGI arrives to via its optimisation calculations, or the things it desires, are not clever or stupid on their own.

The thing that gives the “super-intelligent” adjective to the AGI is that it is:
“Super-Effective”!!!
• The goals it chooses are “super-optimal” at ultimately leading to its terminal goals
• It is super-effective at completing its goals
• and its plans have “super-extreme” levels of probability for success.
-- It has Nothing to do with how super-weird and super-insane its goals may seem to humans!

Now, going back to thinking of instrumental goals that would lead to extinction, the -142C temperature goal is still very unimaginative.

The AGI might at some point arrive to the goal of calculating pi to a precision of 10 to the power of 100 trillion digits and that instrumental goal might lead to the instrumental goal of making use of all the molecules on earth to build transistors to do it, like turn earth into a supercomputer.

By default, with super-optimisers things will get super-weird!!!