I find it hard to believe this is a position in good faith. Do you think we should kill all humans e.g. by engineering deadly viruses and releasing them into every population center in the world?
Honestly, this is why I won’t be engaging with comments.
How is this a question based on anything I’ve written? I’m arguing that we should reduce unnecessary suffering that exists right now. So instead of addressing that, you accuse me of advocating of wanting to kill all humans?
Good faith, indeed. Yikes.
Anyone with legit questions and insights (as I said, I could be wrong!) knows where to find me.
P1: Humans are really bad for all other sentient beings.
P2: AI can defeat humans.
P3: AI would be better for other sentient beings than humans.
C: It would be good for sentient beings if AI defeated humans.
I’m asking why “AI” is unique to this argument and why you couldn’t replace “AI” with any other method that kills all humans but leaves other sentient beings alive, e.g. “engineered virus”. I could be crazy but I genuinely don’t see what part of your argument precludes that.
Edit: I should have made it clear in my original comment that this is a question about the titular claim and the final section, and not about the parts in between which I read as arguments for near termism that I completely agree with.
I find it hard to believe this is a position in good faith. Do you think we should kill all humans e.g. by engineering deadly viruses and releasing them into every population center in the world?
Honestly, this is why I won’t be engaging with comments.
How is this a question based on anything I’ve written? I’m arguing that we should reduce unnecessary suffering that exists right now. So instead of addressing that, you accuse me of advocating of wanting to kill all humans?
Good faith, indeed. Yikes.
Anyone with legit questions and insights (as I said, I could be wrong!) knows where to find me.
Over and out.
This is how I understand your argument.
P1: Humans are really bad for all other sentient beings. P2: AI can defeat humans. P3: AI would be better for other sentient beings than humans. C: It would be good for sentient beings if AI defeated humans.
I’m asking why “AI” is unique to this argument and why you couldn’t replace “AI” with any other method that kills all humans but leaves other sentient beings alive, e.g. “engineered virus”. I could be crazy but I genuinely don’t see what part of your argument precludes that.
Edit: I should have made it clear in my original comment that this is a question about the titular claim and the final section, and not about the parts in between which I read as arguments for near termism that I completely agree with.