If someone uses the phrase “saving the world” on any level approaching consistent, run.
I use this phrase a lot, so if you think this phrase is a red flag, well, include me on the list of people who have that flag.
If someone pitches you on something that makes you uncomfortable, but for which you can’t figure out your exact objection—or if their argument seems wrong but you don’t see the precise hole in their logic—it is not abandoning your rationality to listen to your instinct.
Agreed (here, and with most of your other points). Instincts like those can be wrong, but they can also be right. “Rationality” requires taking all of the data into consideration, including illegible hunches and intuitions.
If someone says “the reputational risks to EA of you publishing this outweigh the benefits of exposing x’s bad behavior. if there’s even a 1% chance that AI risk is real, then this could be a tremendously evil thing to do”, nod sagely then publish that they said that.
Yeah a quick search finds 10,000+ hits for comments about “saving the world”) on this forum, many of which are by me.
I do think the phrase is a bit childish and lacks some rigor, but I’m not sure what’s a good replacement. “This project can avert 10^-9 to 10^-5 dooms defined as unendorsed human extinction or worse at 80% resilience” just doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
I do think the phrase is a bit childish and lacks some rigor
I think the phrase is imprecise, relative to phrases like “prevent human extinction” or “maximize the probability that the reachable universe ends up colonized by happy flourishing civilizations”. But most of those phrases are long-winded, and it often doesn’t matter in conversation exactly which version of “saving the world” you have in mind.
(Though it does matter, if you’re working on existential risk, that people know you’re being relatively literal and serious. A lot of people talk about “saving the planet” when the outcome they’re worried about is, e.g., a 10% loss in current biodiversity, rather than the destruction of all future value in the observable universe.)
If a phrase is useful and tracks reality well, then if it sounds “childish” that’s more a credit to children than a discredit to the phrase.
And I don’t know what “lacks some rigor” means here, unless it’s referring to the imprecision.
Mostly, I like “saves the world” because it owns my weird beliefs about the situation I think we’re in, and states it bluntly so others can easily understand my view and push back against it if they disagree.
Being in a situation where you think your professional network’s actions have a high chance of literally killing every human on the planet in the next 20 years, or of preventing this from happening, is a very unusual and fucked up situation to be in. I could use language that downplays how horrifying and absurd this all is, but that would be deceiving you about what I actually think. I’d rather be open about the belief, so it can actually be talked about.
I use this phrase a lot, so if you think this phrase is a red flag, well, include me on the list of people who have that flag.
Agreed (here, and with most of your other points). Instincts like those can be wrong, but they can also be right. “Rationality” requires taking all of the data into consideration, including illegible hunches and intuitions.
Agreed!
Yeah a quick search finds 10,000+ hits for comments about “saving the world”) on this forum, many of which are by me.
I do think the phrase is a bit childish and lacks some rigor, but I’m not sure what’s a good replacement. “This project can avert 10^-9 to 10^-5 dooms defined as unendorsed human extinction or worse at 80% resilience” just doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.
I think the phrase is imprecise, relative to phrases like “prevent human extinction” or “maximize the probability that the reachable universe ends up colonized by happy flourishing civilizations”. But most of those phrases are long-winded, and it often doesn’t matter in conversation exactly which version of “saving the world” you have in mind.
(Though it does matter, if you’re working on existential risk, that people know you’re being relatively literal and serious. A lot of people talk about “saving the planet” when the outcome they’re worried about is, e.g., a 10% loss in current biodiversity, rather than the destruction of all future value in the observable universe.)
If a phrase is useful and tracks reality well, then if it sounds “childish” that’s more a credit to children than a discredit to the phrase.
And I don’t know what “lacks some rigor” means here, unless it’s referring to the imprecision.
Mostly, I like “saves the world” because it owns my weird beliefs about the situation I think we’re in, and states it bluntly so others can easily understand my view and push back against it if they disagree.
Being in a situation where you think your professional network’s actions have a high chance of literally killing every human on the planet in the next 20 years, or of preventing this from happening, is a very unusual and fucked up situation to be in. I could use language that downplays how horrifying and absurd this all is, but that would be deceiving you about what I actually think. I’d rather be open about the belief, so it can actually be talked about.