The tendency to be corrupted by power is a specific biological adaptation, supported by specific cognitive circuits, built into us by our genes for a clear evolutionary reason. It wouldn’t spontaneously appear in the code of a Friendly AI any more than its transistors would start to bleed.
This is critical to your point. But you haven’t established this at all. You made one post with a just-so story about males in tribes perceiving those above them as corrupt, and then assumed, with no logical justification that I can recall, that this meant that those above them actually are corrupt. You haven’t defined what corrupt means, either.
I think you need to sit down and spell out what ‘corrupt’ means, and then Think Really Hard about whether those in power actually are more corrupt than those not in power;and if so, whether the mechanisms that lead to that result are a result of the peculiar evolutionary history of humans, or of general game-theoretic / evolutionary mechanisms that would apply equally to competing AIs.
You might argue that if you have one Sysop AI, it isn’t subject to evolutionary forces. This may be true. But if that’s what you’re counting on, it’s very important for you to make that explicit. I think that, as your post stands, you may be attributing qualities to Friendly AIs, that apply only to Solitary Friendly AIs that are in complete control of the world.
Which albeit is a common paradigm for online writing, to make elaborate claims hinge off obfuscated logical errors, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
But it doesn’t help when they are cited in the future as credible sources.
See Ends Don’t Justify Means (Among Humans) for the standard consequentialist rejection of this view.
That’s consistent with my argument here. There may be good reasons to act as a deontologist even if itgives a wrong account of what matters.
The second highest rated comment to that post is:
Which albeit is a common paradigm for online writing, to make elaborate claims hinge off obfuscated logical errors, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
But it doesn’t help when they are cited in the future as credible sources.