The drive to swim is not obvious except as a subgoal to one of the other goals. The the drive to escape is obvious extension/subgoal of the drive to survive.
The drives to cooperate and seek help are not obvious extensions to a single one of the listed drives.
Further, Omohundro's paper quite explicitly referred to its expectation of sociopathic behavior barring outside influences. It was not that these drives were judged not sufficiently "basic", it was obvious that they were overlooked.
Cooperation and seeking help will appear in sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design -- and to succeed, they both require socially acceptable social behavior.
Cooperation seems unlikely to appear in "sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design" - since to cooperate you need to have some colleagues - and some forms of machine intelligence could well be peerless.
I don't think Omohundro expects machine sociopaths. He often ends his talks on the topic with a big Buddha slide, like this:
...Hopefully, through a combination of understanding our own values and where they came from, together with an intelligent analysis of the properties of this technology, we can blend them together to make technology with
[...] SIAI's Scary Idea goes way beyond the mere statement that there are risks as well as benefits associated with advanced AGI, and that AGI is a potential existential risk.
[...] Although an intense interest in rationalism is one of the hallmarks of the SIAI community, still I have not yet seen a clear logical argument for the Scary Idea laid out anywhere. (If I'm wrong, please send me the link, and I'll revise this post accordingly. Be aware that I've already at least skimmed everything Eliezer Yudkowsky has written on related topics.)
So if one wants a clear argument for the Scary Idea, one basically has to construct it oneself.
[...] If you put the above points all together, you come up with a heuristic argument for the Scary Idea. Roughly, the argument goes something like: If someone builds an advanced AGI without a provably Friendly architecture, probably it will have a hard takeoff, and then probably this will lead to a superhuman AGI system with an architecture drawn from the vast majority of mind-architectures that are not sufficiently harmonious with the complex, fragile human value system to make humans happy and keep humans around.
The line of argument makes sense, if you accept the premises.
But, I don't.
Ben Goertzel: The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It), October 29 2010. Thanks to XiXiDu for the pointer.