On their (new) view on what objections against strong longtermism are strongest—I think that this may be the most useful update in the paper. I think it is very important to pinpoint the strongest objections to a thesis, to focus further research.
It is interesting that the authors essentially appear to have dismissed the intractability objection. It isn’t clear if they no longer think this is a valid objection, or if they just don’t think it is as strong as the other objections they highlight this time around. I would like to ask them about this in an AMA.
The authors concede that there needs to be further research to tackle these new objections. Overall, I got the impression that the authors are still “strong longtermists”, but are perhaps less confident in the longtermist thesis than they were when they wrote the first version of the paper—something else I would like to ask them about.
On their (new) view on what objections against strong longtermism are strongest—I think that this may be the most useful update in the paper. I think it is very important to pinpoint the strongest objections to a thesis, to focus further research.
It is interesting that the authors essentially appear to have dismissed the intractability objection. It isn’t clear if they no longer think this is a valid objection, or if they just don’t think it is as strong as the other objections they highlight this time around. I would like to ask them about this in an AMA.
The authors concede that there needs to be further research to tackle these new objections. Overall, I got the impression that the authors are still “strong longtermists”, but are perhaps less confident in the longtermist thesis than they were when they wrote the first version of the paper—something else I would like to ask them about.