Yeah, you kind of have to deal with the handicap of being the successor-organization to the Singularity Institute, who were really noticeably bad at public relations. Note that I say "at public relations" rather than "at science".

Hopefully you got those $3 I left on your desk in September to encourage PUBLISHING MOAR PAPERS ;-).

Actually, to be serious a moment, there are some open scientific questions here.

• Why should general intelligence in terms of potential actions correspond to general world optimization in terms of motivations? If values and intelligence are orthogonal, why can't we build a "mind design" for a general AI that would run a kebab truck as well as a human and do nothing else whatsoever?

• Why is general intelligence so apparently intractable when we are a living example that provably manages to get up in the morning and act usefully each day without having to spend infinite or exponential time calculating possibilities?

• Once we start getting into the realm of Friendliness research, how the hell do you specify an object-level ontology to a generally-intelligent agent, to deal with concepts like "humans are such-and-so agents and your purpose is to calculate their collective CEV"? You can't even build Clippy without ontology, though strangely enough, you may be able to build a Value Learner without it.

All of these certainly make a difference in probable outcomes of a Kludge AI between Clippy, FAI, and Kebab AI.