I propose we Taboo the phrase “most important”, and agree that it’s quite vague. The claim I read Karnofsky as making, phrased more precisely, is something like:
In approximately this century, it seems likely that humanity will be exposed to a high level of X-risk, while also developing technology capable of eliminating almost all known X-risks.
This is the Precipice view of things—we’re in a brief dangerous bottleneck, after which it seems like things will be much safer. I agree it takes a leap to forecast that no further X-risks will arise in the trillions of years post-Precipice.
Based on your post, I’m guessing that your use of “important” is something more about availability of choice, wildness, value, and maybe a twist where the present is always the most important by definition. I don’t think Karnofsky would argue that the current century is the “most important” in any of these senses of the word.
I propose we Taboo the phrase “most important”, and agree that it’s quite vague. The claim I read Karnofsky as making, phrased more precisely, is something like:
This is the Precipice view of things—we’re in a brief dangerous bottleneck, after which it seems like things will be much safer. I agree it takes a leap to forecast that no further X-risks will arise in the trillions of years post-Precipice.
Based on your post, I’m guessing that your use of “important” is something more about availability of choice, wildness, value, and maybe a twist where the present is always the most important by definition. I don’t think Karnofsky would argue that the current century is the “most important” in any of these senses of the word.
Is there still disagreement after this Taboo?