I'm not sure why you phrased your comment as a parenthetical, could you explain that? Also, while I agree with your statement, appearing competent to engage in discussion is quite important for enabling one to take part in discussion. I don't like seeing someone who is genuinely curious get downvoted into oblivion.
The problem here in not appearing incompetent, but being wrong/confused. This is the problem that should be fixed by reading the literature. It is more efficient to fix it by reading the literature rather than by engaging in a discussion, even given good intentions. Fixing the appearances might change the attitude of other people towards preferring the option of discussion, but I don't think the attitude should change on that basis, reading the literature is still more efficient, so fixing appearances would mislead rather than help.
(I use parentheticals to...
How will we know if future AI’s (or even existing planners) are making decisions that are bad for humans unless we spell out what we think is unfriendly?
At a machine level the AI would be recursively minimising cost functions to produce the most effective plan of action to achieve the goal, but how will we know if its decision is going to cause harm?
Is there a model or dataset which describes what is friendly to humans? e.g.
Context
0 - running a simulation in a VM
2 - physical robot with vacuum attachment
9 - full control of a plane
Actions
0 - selecting a song to play
5 - deciding which section of floor to vacuum
99 - deciding who is an ‘enemy’
9999 - aiming a gun at an ‘enemy’
Impact
1 - poor song selected to play, human mildly annoyed
2 - ineffective use of resources (vacuuming the same floor section twice)
99 - killing a human
99999 - killing all humans
This may not be possible to get agreement from all countries/cultures/beliefs, but it is something we should discuss and attempt to get some agreement.
.