Right - well, fine. One issue is that the classification into paperclippers and non-paperclippers was not clear to me until you clarified it. Another poster has "clarified" things the other way in response to the same comment. So, as a classification scheme, IMO the idea seems rather vague and unclear.

The next issue is: how close does an agent have to be to what you (we?) want before it is a non-paperclipper?

IMO, the idea of a metaphorical unfriendly paperclipper appears to need pinning down before it is of very much use as a means of superintelligence classification scheme.

Briefly:

I don't avocate building machines that are indiffierent to humans. For instance, I think machine builders would be well advised to (and probably mostly will) construct devices that obey the law - which includes all kinds of provisions for preventing harm to humans.

Evolution did produce the wheel and the bow and arrow. If you think otherwise, please state clearly what definition of the term "evolution" you are using.

Regarding space travel - I was talking about wetware humans.

Re: "Why do you think a superintelligence will have problems dealing with asteroids when humans today are researching ways to deflect them?"

...that is a projection on your part - not something I said.

Re: "Also, I think you fail to notice the huge first-mover advantage of any superintelligence"

To quote mine myself:

"IMHO, it is indeed possible that the first AI will effectively take over the world. I.T. is an environment with dramatic first-mover advantages. It is often a winner-takes-all market – and AI seems likely to exhibit such effects in spades."

• http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/roger-shank-ai.html

"Google was not the first search engine, Microsoft was not the first OS maker - and Diffie–Hellman didn't invent public key crypto.

Being first does not necessarily make players uncatchable - and there's a selection process at work in the mean time, that weeds out certain classes of failures."

• http://lesswrong.com/lw/1mm/advice_for_ai_makers/1gkg

I have thought and written about this issue quite a bit - and my position seems a bit more nuanced and realistic than the position you are saying you think I should have.

Well, most superintelligences don't have genes.

What follows is just a copy-and-paste of another reply, but:

By "gene" I mean:

"Small chunk of heritable information"

http://alife.co.uk/essays/informational_genetics/

Any sufficiently long-term persistent structure persists via a copying process - and so has "genes" in this sense.

Maybe. Though if you look at:

http://originoflife.net/gods_utility_function/

...then first of all the term is borrowed/inherited from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_utility_function

...and also, I do mean it in a broader sense where (hopefully) it makes a bit more sense.

The concept is also referred to as "Goal system zero" - which I don't like much.

My latest name for the idea is "Shiva's goals" / "Shiva's values" - a reference to the Hindu god of destruction, creation and transformation.

By "gene" I mean:

"Small chunk of heritable information"

http://alife.co.uk/essays/informational_genetics/

Any sufficiently long-term persistent structure persists via a copying process - and so has "genes" in this sense.