Your desire to do good and your specific proposals are valuable. But you seem to be a bit naive about power, human nature, and the difficulty of doing good even if you have power. 

For example, you talk about freeing people under oppressive regimes. But every extant political system and major ideology, has some corresponding notion of the greater good, and what you are calling oppressive is supposed to protect that greater good, or to protect the system against encroaching rival systems with different values. 

You mention China as oppressive and say Chinese citizens "can do [nothing] to cause meaningful improvement from my perspective". So what is it when Chinese bring sanitation or electricity to a village, or when someone in the big cities invents a new technology or launches a new service? That's Chinese people making life better for Chinese. Evidently your focus is on the one-party politics and the vulnerability of the individual to the all-seeing state. But even those have their rationales. The Leninist political system is meant to keep power in the hands of the representatives of the peasants and the workers. And the all-seeing state is just doing what you want your aligned superintelligence to do - using every means it has, to bring about the better world. 

Similar defenses can be made of every western ideology, whether conservative or liberal, progressive or libertarian or reactionary. They all have a concept of the greater good, and they all sacrifice something for the sake of it. In every case, such an ideology may also empower individuals, or specific cliques and classes, to pursue their self-interest under the cover of the ideology. But all the world's big regimes have some kind of democratic morality, as well as a persistent power elite. 

Regarding a focus on suffering - the easiest way to abolish suffering is to abolish life. All the difficulties arise when you want everyone to have life, and freedom too, but without suffering. Your principles aren't blind to this, e.g. number 3 ("spread empathy") might be considered a way to preserve freedom while reducing the possibility of cruelty. But consider number 4, "respect diversity". This can clash with your moral urgency. Give people freedom, and they may focus on their personal flourishing, rather than the suffering or oppressed somewhere else. Do you leave them to do their thing, so that the part of life's diversity which they embody can flourish, or do you lean on them to take part in some larger movement? 

I note that @daijin has already provided a different set of values which are rivals to your own. Perhaps someone could write the story of a transhuman world in which all the old politics has been abolished, and instead there's a cold war between blocs that have embraced these two value systems! 

The flip side of these complaints of mine, is that it's also not a foregone conclusion that if some group manages to create superintelligence and actually knows what they're doing - i.e. they can choose its values with confidence that those values will be maintained - that we'll just have perpetual oppression worse than death. As I have argued, every serious political ideology has some notion of the greater good, that is part of the ruling elite's culture. That elite may contain a mix of cynics, the morally exhausted and self-interested, the genuinely depraved, and those born to power, but it will also contain people who are fighting for an ideal, and new arrivals with bold ideas and a desire for change; and also those who genuinely see themselves as lovers of their country or their people or humanity, but who also have an enormously high opinion of themselves. The dream of the last kind of person is not some grim hellscape, it's a utopia of genuine happiness where they are also worshipped as transhumanity's greatest benefactor. 

Another aspect of what I'm saying, is that you feel this pessimistic about the world, because you are alienated from all the factions who actually wield power. If you were part of one of those elite clubs that actually has a chance of winning the race to create superintelligence, you might have a more benign view of the prospect that they end up wielding supreme power. 

I don't have a detailed explanation, but the user is posting a series of assignment or exam questions. Some of them are about "abuse". Gemini is providing an example of verbal abuse. 

If I understand you correctly, you want to create an unprecedentedly efficient and coordinated network, made out of intelligent people with goodwill, that will solve humanity's problems in theory and in practice? 

These are my thoughts in response. I don't claim to know that what I say here is the truth, but it's a paradigm that makes sense to me. 

Strategic global cooperation to stop AI is effectively impossible, and hoping to do it by turning all the world powers into western-style democracies first is really impossible. Any successful diplomacy will have to work with the existing realities of power within and among countries, but even then, I only see tactical successes at best. Even stopping AI within the West looks very unlikely. Nationalization is conceivable, but I think it would have to partly come as an initiative from a cartel of leading companies; there is neither the will nor the understanding in the non-tech world of politics to simply impose nationalization of AI on big tech. 

For these reasons, I think the only hope of arriving at a human-friendly future by design rather than by accident, is to solve the scientific, philosophical, and design issues involved, in the creation of benevolent superhuman AI. Your idea to focus on the creation of "digital people" has a lot in common with this; more precisely, I would say that many of the questions that would have to be answered, in order to know what you're doing when creating digital people, are also questions that have to be answered, in order to know how to create benevolent superhuman AI. 

Still, in the end I expect that the pursuit of AI leads to superintelligence, and an adequately benevolent superintelligence would not necessarily be a person. It would, however, need to know what a person is, in a way that isn't tied to humanity or even to biology, because it would be governing a world in which that "unprecedented diversity of minds" can exist. 

Eliezer has argued that it is unrealistic to think that all the scientific, philosophical, and design issues can be solved in time. He also argues that in the absence of a truly effective global pause or ban, the almost inevitable upshot is a superintelligence that reorganizes the world in a way that is unfriendly to human beings, because human values are complex, and so human-friendliness requires a highly specific formulation of what human values are, and of the AI architecture that will preserve and extrapolate them. 

The argument that the design issues can't be resolved in time is strong. They involve a mix of perennial philosophical questions like the nature of the good, scientific questions like the nature of human cognition and consciousness, and avantgarde computer-science issues like the dynamics of superintelligent deep learning systems. One might reasonably expect it to take decades to resolve all these. 

Perhaps the best reason for hope here, is the use of AI as a partner in solving the problems. Of course this is a common idea, e.g. "weak-to-strong generalization" would be a form of this. It is at least conceivable that the acceleration of discovery made possible by AI, could be used to solve all the issues pertaining to friendly superintelligence, in years or months, rather than requiring decades. But there is also a significant risk that some AI-empowered group will be getting things wrong, while thinking that they are getting it right. It is also likely that even if a way is found to walk the path to a successful outcome (however narrow that path may be), that all the way to the end, there will be rival factions who have different beliefs about what the correct path is. 

As for the second proposition I have attributed to Eliezer - that if we don't know what we're doing when we cross the threshold to superintelligence, doom is almost inevitable - that's less clear to me. Perhaps there are a few rough principles which, if followed, greatly increase the odds in favor of a world that has a human-friendly niche somewhere in it. 

Who said biological immortality (do you mean a complete cure for ageing?) requires nanobots?

We know individual cell lines can go on indefinitely, the challenge is to have an intelligent multicellular organism that can too.

It's the best plan I've seen in a while (not perfect, but has many good parts). The superalignment team at Anthropic should probably hire you.

Isn't this just someone rich, spending money to make it look like the market thinks Trump will win?

Doom aside, do you expect AI to be smarter than humans? If so, do you nonetheless expect humans to still control the world? 

"Successionism" is a valuable new word.

My apologies. I'm usually right when I guess that a post has been authored by AI, but it appears you really are a native speaker of one of the academic idioms that AIs have also mastered. 

As for the essay itself, it involves an aspect of AI safety or AI policy that I have neglected, namely, the management of socially embedded AI systems. I have personally neglected this in favor of SF-flavored topics like "superalignment" because I regard the era in which AIs and humans have a coexistence in which humans still have the upper hand as a very temporary thing. Nonetheless, we are still in that era right now, and hopefully some of the people working within that frame, will read your essay and comment. I do agree that the public health paradigm seems like a reasonable source of ideas, for the reasons that you give.