Executive summary: The author proposes modifying our approach to existential risk prioritization by incorporating the likelihood of key influencing metaphysical claims.
Key points:
Disagreements over existential risk prioritization often stem from different metaphysical assumptions that are unclear or debatable.
We should estimate the probability that these influential metaphysical claims are true based on surveying expert consensus.
These metaphysical probability estimates can then be combined with conditional risk probabilities to calculate overall catastrophic event likelihoods.
This allows more reasoned prioritization between existential risks despite metaphysical uncertainty.
Broadening the scope of “existential risk” raises issues around preventing more generalized suffering.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
I have proposed that we survey the population—not the consensus amongst experts—because I have written about metaphysical claims about which there is little consensus amongst experts, or have at least tried to.
Executive summary: The author proposes modifying our approach to existential risk prioritization by incorporating the likelihood of key influencing metaphysical claims.
Key points:
Disagreements over existential risk prioritization often stem from different metaphysical assumptions that are unclear or debatable.
We should estimate the probability that these influential metaphysical claims are true based on surveying expert consensus.
These metaphysical probability estimates can then be combined with conditional risk probabilities to calculate overall catastrophic event likelihoods.
This allows more reasoned prioritization between existential risks despite metaphysical uncertainty.
Broadening the scope of “existential risk” raises issues around preventing more generalized suffering.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
I have proposed that we survey the population—not the consensus amongst experts—because I have written about metaphysical claims about which there is little consensus amongst experts, or have at least tried to.
I wonder; was this summary generated by AI?