Thatās a really interesting solutionāIām a bit swamped today but Iāll seriously consider this tomorrowāit might be a nice way to clarify things without changing the meaning of the statement for people who have already written posts. Cheers!
I think Iāll stick with this current statementāpartly because itās now been announced for a while so people may be relying on its specific implications for their essays, but also because this new formulation (to me) doesnāt seem to avoid the problem you raise, that it isnāt clear what your vote would be if you think the same type of work is recommended for both. Perhaps the solution to that issue is in footnote 3 on the current bannerāif you think that the value from working on AI takeover is mostly from avoiding extinction, then you should vote agree. If you think it is from increasing the value of the future by another means (such as more democratic control of the future by humans), then you should vote disagree.
Thatās a really interesting solutionāIām a bit swamped today but Iāll seriously consider this tomorrowāit might be a nice way to clarify things without changing the meaning of the statement for people who have already written posts. Cheers!
I think Iāll stick with this current statementāpartly because itās now been announced for a while so people may be relying on its specific implications for their essays, but also because this new formulation (to me) doesnāt seem to avoid the problem you raise, that it isnāt clear what your vote would be if you think the same type of work is recommended for both. Perhaps the solution to that issue is in footnote 3 on the current bannerāif you think that the value from working on AI takeover is mostly from avoiding extinction, then you should vote agree. If you think it is from increasing the value of the future by another means (such as more democratic control of the future by humans), then you should vote disagree.