I find it a bit frustrating that most critiques of AI Safety work or longtermism in general seem to start by constructing a strawman of the movement. I’ve read a ton of stuff by self-proclaimed long-termists and would consider myself one and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone seriously propose choosing to decrease the risk of existential risk by .0000001 percent instead of lifting a billion people out of poverty. I’m sure people have, but it’s certainly not a mainstream view in the community.
And as others have rightly pointed out, there’s a strong case to be made for caring about AI safety or engineered pandemics or nuclear war even if all you care about are the people alive today.
The critique also does the “guilt by association” thing where it tries to make the movement bad by associating it with people the author knows are unpopular with their audience.
I find it a bit frustrating that most critiques of AI Safety work or longtermism in general seem to start by constructing a strawman of the movement. I’ve read a ton of stuff by self-proclaimed long-termists and would consider myself one and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone seriously propose choosing to decrease the risk of existential risk by .0000001 percent instead of lifting a billion people out of poverty. I’m sure people have, but it’s certainly not a mainstream view in the community.
And as others have rightly pointed out, there’s a strong case to be made for caring about AI safety or engineered pandemics or nuclear war even if all you care about are the people alive today.
The critique also does the “guilt by association” thing where it tries to make the movement bad by associating it with people the author knows are unpopular with their audience.