Malevolent(-ish) actors seem much more likely to cause existential catastrophes than astronomical suffering. Therefore, the less we’re confident in the hypothesis that human expansion is positive,[15] the less reducing the influence of malevolent actors seems important.
I agree in terms of absolute probabilities. But in terms of relative risks, naively I’d expect malevolent actors to be much more likely, in relative terms, to cause s-risks than benevolent or selfish actors. That is because you need to posit additional motivations or miscalculations for most non-malevolent actors to intentionally cause s-risks, whereas malevolence itself may provide sufficient motivation. Indeed, I’ve previously assumed this is why negative-leaning folks focused on studying malevolent actors in the first place.
I agree in terms of absolute probabilities. But in terms of relative risks, naively I’d expect malevolent actors to be much more likely, in relative terms, to cause s-risks than benevolent or selfish actors. That is because you need to posit additional motivations or miscalculations for most non-malevolent actors to intentionally cause s-risks, whereas malevolence itself may provide sufficient motivation. Indeed, I’ve previously assumed this is why negative-leaning folks focused on studying malevolent actors in the first place.