Claim · 2021-09-14 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Häggström's paper of 14 September 2021 replies to Müller and Cannon's paper of 2021, which it names.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

AI, orthogonality and the Müller-Cannon instrumental vs general intelligence distinction → cites → Existential risk from AI and orthogonality: Can we have it both ways?

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

AI, orthogonality and the Müller-Cannon instrumental vs general intelligence distinctioncites ↓Existential risk from AI and orthogonality: Can we have it both ways?

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2021-09-14 · publication Records dated 2021 →

Scope and limitsA reply is not agreement; the record says only that the text answers the other.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

AI, orthogonality and the Müller-Cannon instrumental vs general intelligence distinction

arXiv (2109.07911v1) · 2021-09-14

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“despite the suggestion in a recent paper by Müller and Cannon that the argument contains a flaw.”

Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 1

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Olle Häggström
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 14916fe44284e90874e0617d5b36a111179b5a2d5973f1e716ef4fdf035c51d9). arXiv v1, headed 'Draft, September 14, 2021'.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Olle Häggström, “AI, orthogonality and the Müller-Cannon instrumental vs general intelligence distinction”, 2021-09-14.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (17 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.

Date. Date of posting.

Record ID rd-reply-haggstrom-2021-muller-cannon-distinction-to-muller-cannon-2021-existential-risk-orthogonality