But isn't it problematic to start the analysis at "superhuman AGI exists"? Then we need to make assumptions about how that AGI came into being. What are those assumptions, and how robust are they?
Why start the analysis at superhuman AGI? Why not solve the problem of aligning AI for the entire trajectory from current AI to superhuman AGI?
In particular, we should be interested in how long it will take for AGIs to proceed from human-level intelligence to superintelligence, which we’ll call the takeoff period.
Why is this the right framing? Why not focus on the duration between 50% human-level and superintelligence? (Or p% human-level for general p.)
So it seems very likely to me that eventually we will be able to create AIs that can generalise well enough to produce human-level performance on a wide range of tasks, including abstract low-data tasks like running a company.
Notice how unobjectionable this claim is: it's consistent with AGI being developed in a million years.
If you're loss averse, the expected value could easily be negative: cost(voting for wrong candidate) > benefit((voting for right candidate).
I was astonished to find myself having ascended to the pantheon of those who have made major contributions to human knowledge
Is this your own evaluation of your work?
What was the effect of reservists joining the protests? This says: "Some 10,000 military reservists were so upset, they pledged to stop showing up for duty." Does that mean they were actively 'on strike' from their duties? It looks like they're now doing grassroots support (distributing aid).