Although I disagree with several things you write, I think you're engaging with the arguments very constructively, so thanks. I encourage you to spend more time

Although I disagree with several things you write, I think you're engaging with the arguments very constructively, so thanks. I encourage you to spend more time thinking hard about it, in spite of the cost. Some of our disagreement might be an issue of scope, or a misunderstanding of what's being argued by who. So let me just concentrate on this: Armstrong isn't making any claims about the proper measure on the space of possible minds/algorithms, or that purposely constructed minds will be randomly sampled according to that measure. The orthogonality thesis is not meant to convincingly address the difficulty/risk of creating good vs. bad intelligent minds in general, only to point out that the problem doesn't solve itself. Likewise, it's important to know that the space of nuclear devices includes nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors that accidentally melt down. The questions of whether anyone will choose to make bombs, or whether it's possible to create an accident despite good intentions, is separate, and requires additional considerations. In other words, when you say >... the author of the talk linked above claims that likely paths for complex minds will not involve them desiring orthogonal goals, because... if such being will created, it will be precisely created ...following similar principles as the other complex minds on the planet this is outside the scope of what I was criticizing.