A weakness in the sense that it severely contradicts our intuitions on morality and severely violates other moral systems, because under classical total utilitarianism this would not only justify fraud to donate to AI safety, it would justify violence against AI companies too.
(I understand that not everyone agrees that violating moral intuitions makes a moral system weaker, but I don’t want to debate that because I don’t think there’s much point in rehashing existing work on meta-ethics).
I mean that EA is watered-down classical utilitarianism.
I don’t think that’s bad because classical utilitarianism would support committing fraud to give more money to AI safety, especially with short AI timelines. And my understanding is that the consensus in EA is that we should not commit fraud.
A weakness in the sense that it severely contradicts our intuitions on morality and severely violates other moral systems, because under classical total utilitarianism this would not only justify fraud to donate to AI safety, it would justify violence against AI companies too.
(I understand that not everyone agrees that violating moral intuitions makes a moral system weaker, but I don’t want to debate that because I don’t think there’s much point in rehashing existing work on meta-ethics).
I mean that EA is watered-down classical utilitarianism.
I don’t think that’s bad because classical utilitarianism would support committing fraud to give more money to AI safety, especially with short AI timelines. And my understanding is that the consensus in EA is that we should not commit fraud.