Let's throw in a time factor here, and change the way we define our machine: "Assuming that a superintelligence [SI] will contain a program that can efficiently

Let's throw in a time factor here, and change the way we define our machine: "Assuming that a superintelligence [SI] will contain a program that can efficiently infer/deduce all the programs that can be executed by a universal Turing machine on input potentially as complex as the state of the world". This seems much more reasonable in terms of how thinking gets done. We see links to the Halting Problem pop up at times when discussing compilers. Now, compilers try to interpret code in the most perfect way possible. But of course, finding the optimal solution is just the Halting Problem in disguise, and instead they opt for a more pragmatic solution. While none are perfect, some of them are also really, really good, though (http://lemire.me/blog/2016/05/23/the-surprising-cleverness-of-modern-compilers/ http://lemire.me/blog/2016/05/23/the-surprising-cleverness-o...). Now this is just an analogy, but I think the parallel can be drawn back to the SI scenario. We might not have SIs that never cause harm perfectly, but this does not preclude them from being really, really good at it. Because if you admit the definition above, you're also implying that it will efficiently infer/deduce its harm function.