I prefer this briefer formalization, since it avoids some of the vagueness of "adequate preparations" and makes premise (6) clearer.

1. At some point in the development of AI, there will be a very swift increase in the optimization power of the most powerful AI, moving from a non-dangerous level to a level of superintelligence. (Fast take-off)
2. This AI will maximize a goal function.
3. Given fast-take off and maximizing a goal function, the superintelligent AI will have a decisive advantage unless adequate controls are used.
4. Adequate controls will not be used. (E.g. Won’t box/boxing won’t work)
5. Therefore, the superintelligent AI will have a decisive advantage
6. Unless that AI is designed with goals that stably and extremely closely align with ours, if the superintelligent AI has a decisive advantage, civilization will be ruined. (Friendliness is necessary)
7. The AI will not be designed with goals that stably and extremely closely align with ours.
8. Therefore, civilization will be ruined shortly after fast take-off.

1. At some point in the development of AI, there will be a very swift increase in the optimization power of the most powerful AI, moving from a non-dangerous level to a level of superintelligence. (Fast takeoff)

...unless people want it to go slowly. It isn't a law of nature that things will go quickly. It seems likely that a more unified society will be able to progress as slowly as it wants to. There are plenty of proposals to throttle development - via "nannies" or other kinds of safety valve.

Insistence on a rapid takeoff arises from a position of technological determinism. It ignores sociological factors.

IMO, the "rapid takeoff" idea should probably be seen as a fundraising ploy. It's big, scary, and it could conceivably happen - just the kind of thing for stimulating donations.

I've now added a paragraph at the end after discussing the Kahane paper with Greene.

A recent study by folks at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics suggests that Greene et. al.'s results are better explained by appeal to differences in how intuitive/counterintuitive a moral judgment is, rather than differences in how utilitarian/deontological it is. I had a look at the study, and it seems reasonably legit, but I don't have any expertise in neuroscience. As I understand it, their findings suggest that the "more cognitive" part of the brain gets recruited more when making a counterintuitive moral judgment, whether utilitarian or deontological.

Also, it is worth noting that attempts to replicate the differences in response times have failed (this was the result with the Oxford Center for Neuroethics study as well).

Here is an abstract:

Neuroimaging studies on moral decision-making have thus far largely focused on differences between moral judgments with opposing utilitarian (well-being maximizing) and deontological (duty-based) content. However, these studies have investigated moral dilemmas involving extreme situations, and did not control for two distinct dimensions of moral judgment: whether or not it is intuitive (immediately compelling to most people) and whether it is utilitarian or deontological in content. By contrasting dilemmas where utilitarian judgments are counterintuitive with dilemmas in which they are intuitive, we were able to use functional magnetic resonance imaging to identify the neural correlates of intuitive and counterintuitive judgments across a range of moral situations. Irrespective of content (utilitarian/deontological), counterintuitive moral judgments were associated with greater difficulty and with activation in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, suggesting that such judgments may involve emotional conflict; intuitive judgments were linked to activation in the visual and premotor cortex. In addition, we obtained evidence that neural differences in moral judgment in such dilemmas are largely due to whether they are intuitive and not, as previously assumed, to differences between utilitarian and deontological judgments. Our findings therefore do not support theories that have generally associated utilitarian and deontological judgments with distinct neural systems.

An important quote from the study:

To further investigate whether neural differences were due to intuitiveness rather than content of the judgment [utilitarian vs. deontological], we performed the additional analyses....When we controlled for content, these analyses showed considerable overlap for intuitiveness. In contrast, when we controlled for intuitiveness, only little--if any--overlap was found for content. Our results thus speak against the influential interpretation of previous neuroimaging studies as supporting a general association between deontological judgment and automatic processing, and between utilitarian judgment and controlled processing.” (p. 7 my version)

Where to find the study (subscription only):

Kahane, G., K. Wiech, N. Shackel, M. Farias, J. Savulescu and I. Tracey, ‘The Neural Basis of Intuitive and Counterintuitive Moral Judgement’, forthcoming in Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

Link on Guy Kahane's website: http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/members/research_staff/guy_kahane

A simple explanation is that using phrases like "brain scans indicate" and including brain scan images signals scientific eliteness, and halo effect/ordinary reasoning causes them to increase their estimate of the quality of the reasoning they see.

Fun fact: A fellow Rationalist and I were doing Rejection Therapy. My friend chose to do Pascal's Mugging (the positive version - if you give me $5 now, a package of $50000 will appear at your doorstep tomorrow morning).

The subject came extremely close to actually giving him the $5, even though the subject only had five dollars and needed it to get home. (My friend added that a cab would arrive in five minutes if he waited at a particular intersection and take him home for free). He only stopped when I burst out laughing. (It took maybe a 5-10 minute conversation to build up to that point)

We talked to him about it afterwards to ask about his motivations. He said the logic made sense to him and my friend did a good job of maintaining the persona.

Most people don't currently donate all their disposable income to charity.

I do. I give away all my earnings and my husband gives about 20% of his, so we live on a much smaller budget than most people we know.

People on cryonics may not feel the need to spend millions on costly end-of-life treatments</i>

This would be good. But it would be good if people laid off the end-of-life spending even without cryonics.

Finally, ask yourself "If I was offered cryonics for free, would I sign up?"

Maybe. I only heard of the idea a week ago - still thinking.

Do average utilitarians have a standard answer to the question of what is the average welfare of zero people? The theory seems consistent with any such answer. If you're maximizing the average welfare of the people alive at some future point in time, and there's a nonzero chance of causing or preventing extinction, then the answer matters, too.

Where can I find the theorems?