Thanks for the introduction to your work and these concepts. They’re new to me so that’s the beginning of an education.
What I’m worried about in this post is the relationship between two claims: (1) Existential risk is very high, and (2) It’s very important to do what we can to reduce existential risk. You might think that (1) supports (2). In this post, I argue that (1) could tell against (2).
Thanks also for the quick summary of this page, which I admittedly have not read carefully as it’s pretty much over my head. If you wish to continue with the translation in to man in the street language, what does “(1) could tell against (2)” mean?
Are you saying that 2 does not necessarily follow from 1? Or?
Thanks! Sorry for the confusing hedge-y claim: academics tend to be a bit guarded sometimes when we should just say things straight out.
I definitely mean that (2) doesn’t follow from (1). But I mean a lot more than that. I mean that if (1) is true, then it’s much harder for (2) to be true. It’s not impossible for (1) and (2) to be true together. But (1) actually makes it much harder, not easier for (2) to be true.
Thanks for the introduction to your work and these concepts. They’re new to me so that’s the beginning of an education.
Thanks also for the quick summary of this page, which I admittedly have not read carefully as it’s pretty much over my head. If you wish to continue with the translation in to man in the street language, what does “(1) could tell against (2)” mean?
Are you saying that 2 does not necessarily follow from 1? Or?
Thanks! Sorry for the confusing hedge-y claim: academics tend to be a bit guarded sometimes when we should just say things straight out.
I definitely mean that (2) doesn’t follow from (1). But I mean a lot more than that. I mean that if (1) is true, then it’s much harder for (2) to be true. It’s not impossible for (1) and (2) to be true together. But (1) actually makes it much harder, not easier for (2) to be true.
No worries, the problem is mine. There is a LOT that I don’t know about these issues.
So if it’s true that existential risk is very high, that makes it much harder to reduce existential risk? Or...
If it’s true that existential risk is very high, it’s not important to do what we can to reduce it?
Or, something else?
Yeah, the second: if it’s true that existential risk is high, it’s less important to do what we can to reduce it.
It can still be important, but not as important.