Tell that to all the other species that went extinct as a result of our activity on this planet?
I think it’s possible that the first superbaby will be aligned, same way it’s possible that the first AGI will be aligned. But it’s far from a sure thing. It’s true that the alignment problem is considerably different in character for humans vs AIs. Yet even in this particular community, it’s far from solved—consider Brent Dill, Ziz, Sam Bankman-Fried, etc.
Not to mention all of history’s great villains, many of whom believed themselves to be superior to the people they afflicted. If we use genetic engineering to create humans which are actually, massively, undeniably superior to everyone else, surely that particular problem is only gonna get worse. If this enhancement technology is going to be widespread, we should be using the history of human activity on this planet as a prior. Especially the history of human behavior towards genetically distinct populations with overwhelming technological inferiority. And it’s not pretty.
So yeah, there are many concrete details which differ between these two situations. But in terms of high-level strategic implications, I think there are important similarities. Given the benefit of hindsight, what should MIRI have done about AI back in 2005? Perhaps that’s what we should be doing about superbabies now.
Tell that to all the other species that went extinct as a result of our activity on this planet?
Individual humans.
Brent Dill, Ziz, Sam Bankman-Fried, etc.
These are incredibly small peanuts compared to AGI omnicide.
You’re somehow leaving out all the people who are smarter than those people, and who were great for the people around them and humanity? You’ve got like 99% actually alignment or something, and you’re like “But there’s some chance it’ll go somewhat bad!”… Which, yes, we should think about this, and prepare and plan and prevent, but it’s just a totally totally different calculus from AGI.
I’d flag here that the 99% number seems very easy to falsify, solely based on the 20th century experience of both the 2 great wars, as well as the genocides/civil wars of the 20th century, and it’s quite often that one human group is vastly unaligned to another human group, causing mass strife and chaos.
I’m saying that (waves hands vigorously) 99% of people are beneficent or “neutral” (like, maybe not helpful / generous / proactively kind, but not actively harmful, even given the choice) in both intention and in action. That type of neutral already counts as in a totally different league of being aligned compared to AGI.
one human group is vastly unaligned to another human group
Ok, yes, conflict between large groups is something to be worried about, though I don’t much see the connection with germline engineering. I thought we were talking about, like, some liberal/techie/weirdo people have some really really smart kids, and then those kids are somehow a threat to the future of humanity that’s comparable to a fast unbounded recursive self-improvement AGI foom.
I’m saying that (waves hands vigorously) 99% of people are beneficent or “neutral” (like, maybe not helpful / generous / proactively kind, but not actively harmful, even given the choice) in both intention and in action. That type of neutral already counts as in a totally different league of being aligned compared to AGI.
I think this is ultimately the crux, at least relative to my values, I’d expect at least 20% in America to support active efforts to harm me or my allies/people I’m altruistic to, and do so fairly gleefully (an underrated example here is voting for people that will bring mass harm to groups they hate, and hope that certain groups go extinct).
Ok, yes, conflict between large groups is something to be worried about, though I don’t much see the connection with germline engineering. I thought we were talking about, like, some liberal/techie/weirdo people have some really really smart kids, and then those kids are somehow a threat to the future of humanity that’s comparable to a fast unbounded recursive self-improvement AGI foom.
Okay, the connection was to point out that lots of humans are not in fact aligned with each other, and I don’t particularly think superbabies are a threat to the future of humanity that is comparable to AGI, so my point was more so that the alignment problem is not naturally solved in human-to human interactions.
lots of humans are not in fact aligned with each other,
Ok… so I think I understand and agree with you here. (Though plausibly we’d still have significant disagreement; e.g. I think it would be feasible to bring even Hitler back and firmly away from the death fever if he spent, IDK, a few years or something with a very skilled listener / psychic helper.)
The issue in this discourse, to me, is comparing this with AGI misalignment. It’s conceptually related in some interesting ways, but in practical terms they’re just extremely quantitatively different. And, naturally, I care about this specific non-comparability being clear because it says whether to do human intelligence enhancement; and in fact many people cite this as a reason to not do human IE.
The issue in this discourse, to me, is comparing this with AGI misalignment. It’s conceptually related in some interesting ways, but in practical terms they’re just extremely quantitatively different. And, naturally, I care about this specific non-comparability being clear because it says whether to do human intelligence enhancement; and in fact many people cite this as a reason to not do human IE.
Re human vs AGI misalignment, I’d say this is true, in that human misalignments don’t threaten the human species, or even billions of people, whereas AI does, so in that regard I admit human misalignment is less impactful than AGI misalignment.
Of course, if we succeed at creating aligned AI, than human misalignments matter much, much more.
(Rest of the comment is a fun tangentially connected scenario, but ultimately is a hypothetical that doesn’t matter that much for AI alignment.)
Ok… so I think I understand and agree with you here. (Though plausibly we’d still have significant disagreement; e.g. I think it would be feasible to bring even Hitler back and firmly away from the death fever if he spent, IDK, a few years or something with a very skilled listener / psychic helper.)
At the very least, that would require him to not be in control of Germany by that point, and IMO most value change histories rely on changing their values in the child-teen years, because that’s when their sensitivity to data is maximal. After that, the plasticity/sensitivity of values goes way down when you are an adult, and changing values is much, much harder.
I’d say this is true, in that human misalignments don’t threaten the human species, or even billions of people, whereas AI does, so in that regard I admit human misalignment is less impactful than AGI misalignment.
Right, ok, agreed.
the plasticity/sensitivity of values goes way down when you are an adult, and changing values is much, much harder.
I agree qualitatively, but I do mean to say he’s in charge of Germany, but somehow has hours of free time every day to spend with the whisperer. If it’s in childhood I would guess you could do it with a lot less contact, though not sure. TBC, the whisperer here would be considered a world-class, like, therapist or coach or something, so I’m not saying it’s easy. My point is that I have a fair amount of trust in “human decision theory” working out pretty well in most cases in the long run with enough wisdom.
I even think something like this is worth trying with present-day AGI researchers (what I call “confrontation-worthy empathy”), though that is hard mode because you have so much less access.
I think it would be feasible to bring even Hitler back and firmly away from the death fever if he spent, IDK, a few years or something with a very skilled listener / psychic helper
There’s an important point to be made here that Hitler was not a genius, and in general the most evil people in history don’t correlate at all to being the smartest people in history. In fact, the smartest people in history generally seemed more likely to contribute positively to the development of humanity.
I would posit it’s easier to make a high IQ child good for society, with positive nurturing.
The alignment problem perhaps is thus less difficult with “super babies”, because they can more easily see the irrationality in poor ethics and think better from first principles, being grounded in the natural alignment that comes from the fact we are all humans with similar sentience (as opposed to AI which might as well be a different species altogether).
Given that Hitler’s actions resulted in his death and the destruction of Germany, a much higher childhood IQ might even have blunted his evil.
Also don’t buy the idea that very smart humans automatically assume control. I suspect Kamala, Biden, Hillary, etc all had a higher IQ than Donald Trump, but he became the most powerful person on the planet.
Does the size of this effect, according to you, depend on parameters of the technology? E.g. if it clearly has a ceiling, such that it’s just not feasible to make humans who are in a meaningful sense 10x more capable than the most capable non-germline-engineered human? E.g. if the technology is widespread, so that any person / group / state has access if they want it?
My interpretation is that you’re 99% of the way there in terms of work required if you start out with humans rather than creating a de novo mind, even if many/most humans currently or historically are not “aligned”. Like, you don’t need very many bits of information to end up with a nice “aligned” human. E.g. maybe you lightly select their genome for prosociality + niceness/altruism + wisdom, and treat them nicely while they’re growing up, and that suffices for the majority of them.
I’d actually maybe agree with this, though with the caveat that there’s a real possibility you will need a lot more selection/firepower as a human gets smarter, because you lack the ability to technically control humans in the way you can control AIs.
I’d probably bump that down to O(90%) at max, and this could get worse (I’m downranking based on the number of psychopaths/sociopaths and narcissists that exist).
These are incredibly small peanuts compared to AGI omnicide.
The jailbreakability and other alignment failures of current AI systems are also incredibly small peanuts compared to AGI omnicide. Yet they’re still informative. Small-scale failures give us data about possible large-scale failures.
You’re somehow leaving out all the people who are smarter than those people, and who were great for the people around them and humanity? You’ve got like 99% actually alignment or something
Are you thinking of people such as Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk, and Dario Amodei? If humans are 99% aligned, how is it that we ended up in a situation where major lab leaders look so unaligned? MIRI and friends had a fair amount of influence to shape this situation and align lab leaders, yet they appear to have failed by their own lights. Why?
When it comes to AI alignment, everyone on this site understands that if a “boxed” AI acts nice, that’s not a strong signal of actual friendliness. The true test of an AI’s alignment is what it does when it has lots of power and little accountability.
Maybe something similar is going on for humans. We’re nice when we’re powerless, because we have to be. But giving humans lots of power with little accountability doesn’t tend to go well.
Looking around you, you mostly see nice humans. That could be because humans are inherently nice. It could also be because most of the people around you haven’t been given lots of power with little accountability.
Dramatic genetic enhancement could give enhanced humans lots of power with little accountability, relative to the rest of us.
[Note also, the humans you see while looking around are strongly selected for, which becomes quite relevant if the enhancement technology is widespread. How do you think you’d feel about humanity if you lived in Ukraine right now?]
Which, yes, we should think about this, and prepare and plan and prevent, but it’s just a totally totally different calculus from AGI.
I want to see actual, detailed calculations of p(doom) from supersmart humans vs supersmart AI, conditional on each technology being developed. Before charging ahead on this, I want a superforecaster-type person to sit down, spend a few hours, generate some probability estimates, publish a post, and request that others red-team their work. I don’t feel like that is a lot to ask.
Small-scale failures give us data about possible large-scale failures.
But you don’t go from a 160 IQ person with a lot of disagreeability and ambition, who ends up being a big commercial player or whatnot, to 195 IQ and suddenly get someone who just sits in their room for a decade and then speaks gibberish into a youtube livestream and everyone dies, or whatever. The large-scale failures aren’t feasible for humans acting alone. For humans acting very much not alone, like big AGI research companies, yeah that’s clearly a big problem. But I don’t think the problem is about any of the people you listed having too much brainpower.
(I feel we’re somewhat talking past each other, but I appreciate the conversation and still want to get where you’re coming from.)
For humans acting very much not alone, like big AGI research companies, yeah that’s clearly a big problem.
How about a group of superbabies that find and befriend each other? Then they’re no longer acting alone.
I don’t think the problem is about any of the people you listed having too much brainpower.
I don’t think problems caused by superbabies would look distinctively like “having too much brainpower”. They would look more like the ordinary problems humans have with each other. Brainpower would be a force multiplier.
(I feel we’re somewhat talking past each other, but I appreciate the conversation and still want to get where you’re coming from.)
Thanks. I mostly just want people to pay attention to this problem. I don’t feel like I have unique insight. I’ll probably stop commenting soon, since I think I’m hitting the point of diminishing returns.
I mostly just want people to pay attention to this problem.
Ok. To be clear, I strongly agree with this. I think I’ve been responding to a claim (maybe explicit, or maybe implicit / imagined by me) from you like: “There’s this risk, and therefore we should not do this.”. Where I want to disagree with the implication, not the antecedent. (I hope to more gracefully agree with things like this. Also someone should make a LW post with a really catchy term for this implication / antecedent discourse thing, or link me the one that’s already been written.)
But I do strongly disagree with the conclusion ”...we should not do this”, to the point where I say “We should basically do this as fast as possible, within the bounds of safety and sanity.”. The benefits are large, the risks look not that bad and largely ameliorable, and in particular the need regarding existential risk is great and urgent.
That said, more analysis is definitely needed. Though in defense of the pro-germline engineering position, there’s few resources, and everyone has a different objection.
I will go further, and say the human universals are nowhere near strong enough to assume that alignment of much more powerful people will automatically/likely happen, or that not aligning them produces benevolent results, and the reason for this is humans are already misaligned, in many cases very severely to each other, so allowing human augmentation without institutional reform makes things a lot worse by default.
It is better to solve the AI alignment problem first, then have a legal structure created by AIs that can make human genetic editing safe, rather than try to solve the human alignment problem:
I honestly think the EV of superhumans is lower than the EV for AI. sadism and wills to power are baked into almost every human mind (with the exception of outliers of course). force multiplying those instincts is much worse than an AI which simply decides to repurpose the atoms in a human for something else. i think people oftentimes act like the risk ends at existential risks, which i strongly disagree with. i would argue that everyone dying is actually a pretty great ending compared to hyperexistential risks. it is effectively +inf relative utility.
with AIs we’re essentially putting them through selective pressures to promote benevolence (as a hedge by the labs in case they don’t figure out intent alignment). that seems like a massive advantage compared to the evolutionary baggage associated with humans.
with humans you’d need the will and capability to engineer in at least +5sd empathy and −10sd sadism into every superbaby. but people wouldn’t want their children to make them feel like shitty people so they would want them to “be more normal.”
sadism and wills to power are baked into almost every human mind (with the exception of outliers of course). force multiplying those instincts is much worse than an AI which simply decides to repurpose the atoms in a human for something else.
I don’t think the result of intelligence enhancement would be “multiplying those instincts” for the vast majority of people; humans don’t seem to end up more sadistic as they get smarter and have more options.
i would argue that everyone dying is actually a pretty great ending compared to hyperexistential risks. it is effectively +inf relative utility.
I’m curious what value you assign to the ratio [U(paperclipped) - U(worst future)] / [U(best future) - U(paperclipped)]? It can’t be literally infinity unless U(paperclipped) = U(best future).
with humans you’d need the will and capability to engineer in at least +5sd empathy and −10sd sadism into every superbaby.
So your model is that we need to eradicate any last trace of sadism before superbabies is a good idea?
Tell that to all the other species that went extinct as a result of our activity on this planet?
I think it’s possible that the first superbaby will be aligned, same way it’s possible that the first AGI will be aligned. But it’s far from a sure thing. It’s true that the alignment problem is considerably different in character for humans vs AIs. Yet even in this particular community, it’s far from solved—consider Brent Dill, Ziz, Sam Bankman-Fried, etc.
Not to mention all of history’s great villains, many of whom believed themselves to be superior to the people they afflicted. If we use genetic engineering to create humans which are actually, massively, undeniably superior to everyone else, surely that particular problem is only gonna get worse. If this enhancement technology is going to be widespread, we should be using the history of human activity on this planet as a prior. Especially the history of human behavior towards genetically distinct populations with overwhelming technological inferiority. And it’s not pretty.
So yeah, there are many concrete details which differ between these two situations. But in terms of high-level strategic implications, I think there are important similarities. Given the benefit of hindsight, what should MIRI have done about AI back in 2005? Perhaps that’s what we should be doing about superbabies now.
Individual humans.
These are incredibly small peanuts compared to AGI omnicide.
You’re somehow leaving out all the people who are smarter than those people, and who were great for the people around them and humanity? You’ve got like 99% actually alignment or something, and you’re like “But there’s some chance it’ll go somewhat bad!”… Which, yes, we should think about this, and prepare and plan and prevent, but it’s just a totally totally different calculus from AGI.
I’d flag here that the 99% number seems very easy to falsify, solely based on the 20th century experience of both the 2 great wars, as well as the genocides/civil wars of the 20th century, and it’s quite often that one human group is vastly unaligned to another human group, causing mass strife and chaos.
I’m saying that (waves hands vigorously) 99% of people are beneficent or “neutral” (like, maybe not helpful / generous / proactively kind, but not actively harmful, even given the choice) in both intention and in action. That type of neutral already counts as in a totally different league of being aligned compared to AGI.
Ok, yes, conflict between large groups is something to be worried about, though I don’t much see the connection with germline engineering. I thought we were talking about, like, some liberal/techie/weirdo people have some really really smart kids, and then those kids are somehow a threat to the future of humanity that’s comparable to a fast unbounded recursive self-improvement AGI foom.
I think this is ultimately the crux, at least relative to my values, I’d expect at least 20% in America to support active efforts to harm me or my allies/people I’m altruistic to, and do so fairly gleefully (an underrated example here is voting for people that will bring mass harm to groups they hate, and hope that certain groups go extinct).
Okay, the connection was to point out that lots of humans are not in fact aligned with each other, and I don’t particularly think superbabies are a threat to the future of humanity that is comparable to AGI, so my point was more so that the alignment problem is not naturally solved in human-to human interactions.
Ok… so I think I understand and agree with you here. (Though plausibly we’d still have significant disagreement; e.g. I think it would be feasible to bring even Hitler back and firmly away from the death fever if he spent, IDK, a few years or something with a very skilled listener / psychic helper.)
The issue in this discourse, to me, is comparing this with AGI misalignment. It’s conceptually related in some interesting ways, but in practical terms they’re just extremely quantitatively different. And, naturally, I care about this specific non-comparability being clear because it says whether to do human intelligence enhancement; and in fact many people cite this as a reason to not do human IE.
Re human vs AGI misalignment, I’d say this is true, in that human misalignments don’t threaten the human species, or even billions of people, whereas AI does, so in that regard I admit human misalignment is less impactful than AGI misalignment.
Of course, if we succeed at creating aligned AI, than human misalignments matter much, much more.
(Rest of the comment is a fun tangentially connected scenario, but ultimately is a hypothetical that doesn’t matter that much for AI alignment.)
At the very least, that would require him to not be in control of Germany by that point, and IMO most value change histories rely on changing their values in the child-teen years, because that’s when their sensitivity to data is maximal. After that, the plasticity/sensitivity of values goes way down when you are an adult, and changing values is much, much harder.
Right, ok, agreed.
I agree qualitatively, but I do mean to say he’s in charge of Germany, but somehow has hours of free time every day to spend with the whisperer. If it’s in childhood I would guess you could do it with a lot less contact, though not sure. TBC, the whisperer here would be considered a world-class, like, therapist or coach or something, so I’m not saying it’s easy. My point is that I have a fair amount of trust in “human decision theory” working out pretty well in most cases in the long run with enough wisdom.
I even think something like this is worth trying with present-day AGI researchers (what I call “confrontation-worthy empathy”), though that is hard mode because you have so much less access.
There’s an important point to be made here that Hitler was not a genius, and in general the most evil people in history don’t correlate at all to being the smartest people in history. In fact, the smartest people in history generally seemed more likely to contribute positively to the development of humanity.
I would posit it’s easier to make a high IQ child good for society, with positive nurturing.
The alignment problem perhaps is thus less difficult with “super babies”, because they can more easily see the irrationality in poor ethics and think better from first principles, being grounded in the natural alignment that comes from the fact we are all humans with similar sentience (as opposed to AI which might as well be a different species altogether).
Given that Hitler’s actions resulted in his death and the destruction of Germany, a much higher childhood IQ might even have blunted his evil.
Also don’t buy the idea that very smart humans automatically assume control. I suspect Kamala, Biden, Hillary, etc all had a higher IQ than Donald Trump, but he became the most powerful person on the planet.
My estimate is 97% not sociopaths, but only about 60% inclined to avoid teaming up with sociopaths.
Germline engineering likely destroys most of what we’re trying to save, via group conflict effects. There’s a reason it’s taboo.
Does the size of this effect, according to you, depend on parameters of the technology? E.g. if it clearly has a ceiling, such that it’s just not feasible to make humans who are in a meaningful sense 10x more capable than the most capable non-germline-engineered human? E.g. if the technology is widespread, so that any person / group / state has access if they want it?
My interpretation is that you’re 99% of the way there in terms of work required if you start out with humans rather than creating a de novo mind, even if many/most humans currently or historically are not “aligned”. Like, you don’t need very many bits of information to end up with a nice “aligned” human. E.g. maybe you lightly select their genome for prosociality + niceness/altruism + wisdom, and treat them nicely while they’re growing up, and that suffices for the majority of them.
I’d actually maybe agree with this, though with the caveat that there’s a real possibility you will need a lot more selection/firepower as a human gets smarter, because you lack the ability to technically control humans in the way you can control AIs.
Also true, though maybe only for O(99%) of people.
I’d probably bump that down to O(90%) at max, and this could get worse (I’m downranking based on the number of psychopaths/sociopaths and narcissists that exist).
The jailbreakability and other alignment failures of current AI systems are also incredibly small peanuts compared to AGI omnicide. Yet they’re still informative. Small-scale failures give us data about possible large-scale failures.
Are you thinking of people such as Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, Elon Musk, and Dario Amodei? If humans are 99% aligned, how is it that we ended up in a situation where major lab leaders look so unaligned? MIRI and friends had a fair amount of influence to shape this situation and align lab leaders, yet they appear to have failed by their own lights. Why?
When it comes to AI alignment, everyone on this site understands that if a “boxed” AI acts nice, that’s not a strong signal of actual friendliness. The true test of an AI’s alignment is what it does when it has lots of power and little accountability.
Maybe something similar is going on for humans. We’re nice when we’re powerless, because we have to be. But giving humans lots of power with little accountability doesn’t tend to go well.
Looking around you, you mostly see nice humans. That could be because humans are inherently nice. It could also be because most of the people around you haven’t been given lots of power with little accountability.
Dramatic genetic enhancement could give enhanced humans lots of power with little accountability, relative to the rest of us.
[Note also, the humans you see while looking around are strongly selected for, which becomes quite relevant if the enhancement technology is widespread. How do you think you’d feel about humanity if you lived in Ukraine right now?]
I want to see actual, detailed calculations of p(doom) from supersmart humans vs supersmart AI, conditional on each technology being developed. Before charging ahead on this, I want a superforecaster-type person to sit down, spend a few hours, generate some probability estimates, publish a post, and request that others red-team their work. I don’t feel like that is a lot to ask.
But you don’t go from a 160 IQ person with a lot of disagreeability and ambition, who ends up being a big commercial player or whatnot, to 195 IQ and suddenly get someone who just sits in their room for a decade and then speaks gibberish into a youtube livestream and everyone dies, or whatever. The large-scale failures aren’t feasible for humans acting alone. For humans acting very much not alone, like big AGI research companies, yeah that’s clearly a big problem. But I don’t think the problem is about any of the people you listed having too much brainpower.
(I feel we’re somewhat talking past each other, but I appreciate the conversation and still want to get where you’re coming from.)
How about a group of superbabies that find and befriend each other? Then they’re no longer acting alone.
I don’t think problems caused by superbabies would look distinctively like “having too much brainpower”. They would look more like the ordinary problems humans have with each other. Brainpower would be a force multiplier.
Thanks. I mostly just want people to pay attention to this problem. I don’t feel like I have unique insight. I’ll probably stop commenting soon, since I think I’m hitting the point of diminishing returns.
Ok. To be clear, I strongly agree with this. I think I’ve been responding to a claim (maybe explicit, or maybe implicit / imagined by me) from you like: “There’s this risk, and therefore we should not do this.”. Where I want to disagree with the implication, not the antecedent. (I hope to more gracefully agree with things like this. Also someone should make a LW post with a really catchy term for this implication / antecedent discourse thing, or link me the one that’s already been written.)
But I do strongly disagree with the conclusion ”...we should not do this”, to the point where I say “We should basically do this as fast as possible, within the bounds of safety and sanity.”. The benefits are large, the risks look not that bad and largely ameliorable, and in particular the need regarding existential risk is great and urgent.
That said, more analysis is definitely needed. Though in defense of the pro-germline engineering position, there’s few resources, and everyone has a different objection.
I will go further, and say the human universals are nowhere near strong enough to assume that alignment of much more powerful people will automatically/likely happen, or that not aligning them produces benevolent results, and the reason for this is humans are already misaligned, in many cases very severely to each other, so allowing human augmentation without institutional reform makes things a lot worse by default.
It is better to solve the AI alignment problem first, then have a legal structure created by AIs that can make human genetic editing safe, rather than try to solve the human alignment problem:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DfrSZaf3JC8vJdbZL/how-to-make-superbabies#jgDtAPXwSucQhPBwf
I honestly think the EV of superhumans is lower than the EV for AI. sadism and wills to power are baked into almost every human mind (with the exception of outliers of course). force multiplying those instincts is much worse than an AI which simply decides to repurpose the atoms in a human for something else. i think people oftentimes act like the risk ends at existential risks, which i strongly disagree with. i would argue that everyone dying is actually a pretty great ending compared to hyperexistential risks. it is effectively +inf relative utility.
with AIs we’re essentially putting them through selective pressures to promote benevolence (as a hedge by the labs in case they don’t figure out intent alignment). that seems like a massive advantage compared to the evolutionary baggage associated with humans.
with humans you’d need the will and capability to engineer in at least +5sd empathy and −10sd sadism into every superbaby. but people wouldn’t want their children to make them feel like shitty people so they would want them to “be more normal.”
I don’t think the result of intelligence enhancement would be “multiplying those instincts” for the vast majority of people; humans don’t seem to end up more sadistic as they get smarter and have more options.
I’m curious what value you assign to the ratio [U(paperclipped) - U(worst future)] / [U(best future) - U(paperclipped)]? It can’t be literally infinity unless U(paperclipped) = U(best future).
So your model is that we need to eradicate any last trace of sadism before superbabies is a good idea?