The short version of my somewhat opposing view point would be something along the lines of “directional effects aren’t absolute truths”. If moral realism is true, then a superintelligence may indeed be more likely to find these moral facts—but it doesn’t mean it necessarily does, nor does it mean it will be motivated to accept these moral facts as goals. “In the limit” (of intelligence), maybe...? But “just able to disempower humanity”-level ASI could still be very far away from that.
Your points 2-4 are all what I would consider directional effects. (Side note, do you really mean “casually” or “causally”?) They are not necessarily very strong, and opposing factors could exist as well.
And point 6 turns these qualitative/directional considerations into something close-to-quantitative (“likely”) that I wouldn’t see as a conclusion following from the earlier points.
I would still agree with the basic idea that moral realism may be vaguely good news wrt the orthogonality thesis, but for me that seems like a very marginal change.
The short version of my somewhat opposing view point would be something along the lines of “directional effects aren’t absolute truths”. If moral realism is true, then a superintelligence may indeed be more likely to find these moral facts—but it doesn’t mean it necessarily does, nor does it mean it will be motivated to accept these moral facts as goals. “In the limit” (of intelligence), maybe...? But “just able to disempower humanity”-level ASI could still be very far away from that.
Your points 2-4 are all what I would consider directional effects. (Side note, do you really mean “casually” or “causally”?) They are not necessarily very strong, and opposing factors could exist as well.
And point 6 turns these qualitative/directional considerations into something close-to-quantitative (“likely”) that I wouldn’t see as a conclusion following from the earlier points.
I would still agree with the basic idea that moral realism may be vaguely good news wrt the orthogonality thesis, but for me that seems like a very marginal change.
I meant “causally”! Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve edited the post and corrected it.