If animals continue to exist in a post-AGI world, animal suffering will not persist
This question scares me because it feels like it’s coming from a perspective of negative utilitarianism.
I really hope nobody tries to align an AI with a negative-utilitarian value set, because negative-utilitarian values are a half-step away from a really bad conclusion like “we need to eradicate all life in order to eliminate suffering.”
A meta question: of the EAs currently working on AI alignment, what percent would you say are negative utilitarians?
I would have been more comfortable with a question like ”...will animal happiness be on balance greater than animal suffering?”
This definitely wasn’t implying that animal suffering is the only thing that matters about animal existence. People who believe that major action would be taken to end factory farming and allevaite wild animal suffering (in proportion to the amount they think those matter) would agree with the statement, while negative utilitarian beliefs wouldn’t imply that.
To me, “animal suffering will not persist” implies that animal suffering would drop to zero—and, since all life contains some possibility of suffering, this implies that animal life would drop to zero.
I’m glad to hear that wasn’t the meaning you intended, and I hope that the others who voted on the poll were voting on your intended meaning rather than the one I got!
This question scares me because it feels like it’s coming from a perspective of negative utilitarianism.
I really hope nobody tries to align an AI with a negative-utilitarian value set, because negative-utilitarian values are a half-step away from a really bad conclusion like “we need to eradicate all life in order to eliminate suffering.”
A meta question: of the EAs currently working on AI alignment, what percent would you say are negative utilitarians?
I would have been more comfortable with a question like ”...will animal happiness be on balance greater than animal suffering?”
This definitely wasn’t implying that animal suffering is the only thing that matters about animal existence. People who believe that major action would be taken to end factory farming and allevaite wild animal suffering (in proportion to the amount they think those matter) would agree with the statement, while negative utilitarian beliefs wouldn’t imply that.
To me, “animal suffering will not persist” implies that animal suffering would drop to zero—and, since all life contains some possibility of suffering, this implies that animal life would drop to zero.
I’m glad to hear that wasn’t the meaning you intended, and I hope that the others who voted on the poll were voting on your intended meaning rather than the one I got!