The existence of most of the ones you listed sounds questionable.  

How about economic risk exposure (for a given person/city/state)? I think there is already a ton of research on this.

E.g. funding some new nuclear power research could provide a 10000x ROI but .0000X% danger of destroying the city/area of the research facility.

I wrote about Class 1 / Class 2 in the context of blockchain for my blog today and wanted to share my updated thoughts after spending a few days thinking.

I think fundamentally, Class 2 problems is just a rephrasing of tragedy of the commons issues. Rephrasing is useful because it gives us a new perspective to approach an issue.

In the piece, I suggest that we can predict Class 2 problems by thinking about the specific features of the technology, eg blockchain, which motivate entrepreneurs to solve the Class 1 problems, and thinking about how those features could be bad when overdone (classic market failure ideas of over supply)

Rather than coming up with a checklist of things to look out for, which we might never complete, I think using the lens of 'what persuades entrepreneurs to solve the Class 1 problems, and how could this be bad' gives a useful way to approach Class 2 safety topics. It also lets us make the argument that 'these Class 2 problems are only here because the technology was so good that we fixed all the Class 1 problems, so let's face them head on, rather than banning the technology (or similar)'

My blog post here

Early adopter influence is one in some cases, I think when the tech plays a part in providing infrastructure, perhaps also elsewhere.

Kelly talks about crypto, and this is my motivating example here:

Today, though decentralised in name, most of the biggest organisations in crypto are controlled by tiny groups of people, typically single digits (for the orgs where voting takes place on the blockchain, you can verify this yourself).

Such concentration isn't really a problem when a space is small, like crypto is today (relatively: <1 million active users by far; etc). But it becomes significant when the tech becomes widely adopted. For example, Ethereum, the most important blockchain right now, is de facto (could argue de jure) controlled by Vitalik Buterin. If trillions of dollars of industries are moved onto Ethereum (like, perhaps the $14tr securities mkt), then that becomes problematic (specially if people less socially-minded then Vitalik are influential!)

New infrastructure technology creates new elites from the people who were there first. I suppose trains are a historic example. That concentration of power only comes when blockchain works really well, but it can be problematic

I suspect the problem comes when these new elites attempt to reframe society. This necessarily causes instability and can block better improvements, even if this reframing is an improvement on the status quo

As I was writing that post, I was thinking in the back of my mind about this distinction:

• Operational safety: safety from things that are already happening, where we can learn from experience, iterate on solutions, and improve safety metrics over time
• Development safety: safety from new technology that hasn't been developed yet, where we try to mitigate the harms ahead of time, by theoretical models of risk/harm, or by early small-scale testing ahead of deployment, etc.