I think you're right that it will take work to parse; it's definitely taking me work to parse! Possibly what you suggest would be good, but it sounds like work. I'll see what I think after the dialogue.
The analogy from historical evolution is the misalignment between human genes and human minds, where the rise of the latter did not result in extinction of the former. It plausibly could have, but that is not what we observe.
The analogy is that the human genes thing produces a thing (human minds) which wants stuff, but the stuff it wants is different from what what the human genes want. From my perspective you're strawmanning and failing to track the discourse here to a sufficient degree that I'm bowing out.
For evolution in general, this is obviously pattern measure, and truly can not be anything else.
This sure sounds like my attempt elsewhere to describe your position:
There's no such thing as misalignment. There's one overarching process, call it evolution or whatever you like, and this process goes through stages of creating new things along new dimensions, but all the stages are part of the overall process. Anything called "misalignment" is describing the relationship of two parts or stages that are contained in the overarching process. The overarching process is at a higher level than that misalignment relationship, and the misalignment helps compute the overarching process.
Which you dismissed.
I'm saying that you, a bio-evolved thing, are saying that you hope something happens, and that something is not what bio-evolution wants. So you're a misaligned optimizer from bio-evolution's perspective.
A different way to maybe triangulate here: Is misalignment possible, on your view? Like does it ever make sense to say something like "A created B, but failed at alignment and B was misaligned with A"? I ask because I could imagine a position, that sort of sounds a little like what you're saying, which goes:
There's no such thing as misalignment. There's one overarching process, call it evolution or whatever you like, and this process goes through stages of creating new things along new dimensions, but all the stages are part of the overall process. Anything called "misalignment" is describing the relationship of two parts or stages that are contained in the overarching process. The overarching process is at a higher level than that misalignment relationship, and the misalignment helps compute the overarching process.
The original argument that your OP is responding to is about "bio evolution". I understand the distinction, but why is it relevant? Indeed, in the OP you say:
For the evolution of human intelligence, the optimizer is just evolution: biological natural selection. The utility function is fitness: gene replication count (of the human defining genes).
So we're talking about bio evolution, right?
I'm saying that the fact that you, an organism built by the evolutionary process, hope to step outside the evolutionary process and do stuff that the evolutionary process wouldn't do, is misalignment with the evolutionary process.
What do you mean? Surely they aren't offering this for anyone who writes anything manicly. It would be nice if someone volunteered for doing that service more often though.