Aside from the (sordid) specifics of the people they chose; I’m not sure you could really get good results from anyone who would nod along with a proposal to treat a highly capital-intensive replacement for labor as a tool of “personal empowerment” and accept as obvious that “the distributed version of the future” is the one that seems the safest.
That’s essentially them defining their own final victory in the class wars as a necessary prerequisite for AI safety; along with an implied “AI, in its majestic equality, will individually empower everyone who can already afford it” allocation plan; and the implication that any attempt to treat collective action problems as real is what’s truly dangerous.
You could certainly find people who aren’t literally nazis who would sign up for that(at a bare minimum you could easily enough find temperamentally similar people steeped in a different supremacist tradition; perhaps even some who view themselves as benevolent and evenhanded shepherds of their inferiors regardless of race or creed); but that first paragraph of mission statement is almost masterful in how smoothly it defines AI safety into something that implies a variety of fairly extreme positions both without stating them and as though they followed so obviously as to be barely worthy of mention.
