I listen to defense experts talk on Youtube as a weird form of relaxation.

IMHO multirotor helicopter-style drones probably will not produce a revolution in military affairs and probably will not seriously threaten Israel because drone defense is likely to improve drastically over the next 3 years and Israel's enemies cannot acquire sufficient drone offensive capability over those 3 years.

Ordinary rapid-fire guns that have been widely deployed for decades are very effective against drones provided that technology can be deployed to make human gunners or automated gunners better at detecting and aiming at drones, which should take less than 3 years to develop and deploy because the Pentagon and other militaries are prioritizing drone defense and because there is no way to make a multirotor helicopter-style drone that is not loud. I.e., anti-drone technology will use sound to locate the drones or to help human gunners locate the drones.

If there is interest I can probably produce a Youtube title or 2 to back up the words in this comment. They will tend to be hour-long videos, but maybe if there is strong interest I can find the position in the video where I heard a defense expert I respect explain about the sound of the drones.

Drones might turn out the be the cause of death of 100s of 1000s or even millions of people in the near future, but those will be residents of poor countries and badly-governed countries where the government does not have access to the aforementioned anti-drone tech and countries that are in a state of civil war, i.e., almost certainly not Israel unless Tel Aviv becomes much less effective at defense and geopolitics.

Can you explain where there is an error term in AlphaGo or where an error term might appear in hypothetical model similar to AlphaGo trained much longer with much more numerous parameters and computational resources?

At least one person here disagrees with you on Goodharting. (I do.)

You've written before on this site if I recall correctly that Eliezer's 2004 CEV proposal is unworkable because of Goodharting. I am granting myself the luxury of not bothering to look up your previous statement because you can contradict me if my recollection is incorrect.

I believe that the CEV proposal is probably achievable by humans if those humans had enough time and enough resources (money, talent, protection from meddling) and that if it is not achievable, it is because of reasons other than Goodhart's law.

(Sadly, an unaligned superintelligence is much easier for humans living in 2022 to create than a CEV-aligned superintelligence is, so we are probably all going to die IMHO.)

Perhaps before discussing the CEV proposal we should discuss a simpler question, namely, whether you believe that Goodharting inevitably ruins the plans of any group setting out intentionally to create a superintelligent paperclip maximizer.

Another simple goal we might discuss is a superintelligence (SI) whose goal is to shove as much matter as possible into a black hole or an SI that "shuts itself off" within 3 months of its launching where "shuts itself off" means stops trying to survive or to affect reality in any way.