While I concur that power concentration is a highly probable outcome, I believe complete disempowerment warrant deeper consideration, even under the assumptions you've laid out. Here are some thoughts on your specific points:

1. On Baseline Alignment: You suggest a baseline alignment where AIs are unlikely to engage in egregious lying or tampering (though you also flag 20% for scheming and 10% for unintentional egregious behavior even with prevention efforts, that’s already 30%-ish of risk). My concern is twofold:
   • Sufficiency of "Baseline": Even if AIs are "baseline aligned" to their creators, this doesn't automatically mean they are aligned with broader human flourishing or capable of compelling humans to coordinate against systemic risks. For an AI to effectively say, "You are messing up, please coordinate with other nations/groups, stop what you are doing" requires not just truthfulness but also immense persuasive power and, crucially, human receptiveness. Even if pausing AI was the correct thing to do, Claude is not going to suggest this to Anthropic folks for obvious reasons. As we've seen even with entirely human systems (Trump’s Administration and Tariff), possessing information or even offering correct advice doesn't guarantee it will be heeded or lead to effective collective action.
   • Erosion of Baseline: The pressures described in the paper could incentivise the development or deployment of AIs where even "baseline" alignment features are traded off for performance or competitive advantage. The "AI police" you mention might struggle to keep pace or be defunded/sidelined if it impedes perceived progress or economic gains. “Innovation first!”, “Drill baby drill” “Plug baby plug” as they say
2. On "No strong AI rights before full alignment": You argue that productive AIs won't get human-like rights, especially strong property rights, before being robustly aligned, and that human ownership will persist.
   • Indirect Agency: Formal "rights" might not be necessary for disempowerment. An AI, or a network of AIs, could exert considerable influence through human proxies or by managing assets nominally owned by humans who are effectively out of the loop or who benefit from this arrangement. An AI could operate through a human willing to provide access to a bank account and legal personhood, thereby bypassing the need for its own "rights."

3. On "No hot global war":

   You express hope that we won't enter a situation where a humanity-destroying conflict seems plausible.

   • Baseline Risk: While we all share this hope, current geopolitical forecasting (e.g., from various expert groups or prediction markets) often places the probability of major power conflict within the next few decades at non-trivial levels. For a war that makes more than 1M of deaths, some estimates hover around 25%. (But probably your definition of “hot global war” is more demanding)
   • AI as an Accelerant: The dynamics described in the paper – nations racing for AI dominance, AI-driven economic shifts creating instability, AI influencing statecraft – could increase the likelihood of such a conflict.

Responding to your thoughts on why the feedback loops might be less likely if your three properties hold:

• "Owners of capital will remain humans and will remain aware...able to change the user of that AI labor if they desire so."
  • Awareness doesn't guarantee the will or ability to act against strong incentives. AGI development labs are pushing forward despite being aware of the risks, often citing competitive pressures ("If we don't, someone else will"). This "incentive trap" is precisely what could prevent even well-meaning owners of capital from halting a slide into disempowerment. They might say, "Stopping is impossible, it's the incentives, you know," even if their pDoom is 25% like Dario, or they might not give enough compute to their superalignment team.
• "Politicians...will remain aware...able to change what the system is if it has obviously bad consequences."
  • The climate change analogy is pertinent here. We have extensive scientific consensus, an "oracle IPCC report", detailing dire consequences, yet coordinated global action remains insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge. Political systems can be slow, captured by short-term interests, or unable to enact unpopular measures even when long-term risks are "obviously bad." The paper argues AI could further entrench these issues by providing powerful tools for influencing public opinion or creating economic dependencies that make change harder.
• "Human consumers of culture will remain able to choose what culture they consume."
  • You rightly worry about "brain-hacking." The challenge is that "obviously bad" might be a lagging indicator. If AI-generated content subtly shapes preferences and worldviews over time, the ability to recognise and resist this manipulation could diminish before the situation becomes critical. I think that people are going to LOVE AI, and might take the trade to go faster and be happy and disempowered like some junior developers begin to do on Cursor.

As a meta point, the fact that the quantity and quality of discourse on this matter is so low, and the fact that people are continuing to say “LET’S GO WE ARE CREATING POWERFUL AIS, and don't worry, we plan to align them, even if we don't really know which type of alignment do we really need, and if this is even doable in time” while we have not rigorously assessed all those risks, is really not a good sign.

At the end of the day, my probability for something in the ballpark of gradual disempowerment / extreme power concentration and loss of democracy is 40%-ish, much higher than scheming (20%) leading to direct takeover (let’s say 10% post mitigation like control).