In this (purely hypothetical, functionally impossible) scenario, I would choose option Bānot because of the mild, transient suffering in scenario A, but the possibility of the emergence of serious suffering in the future (which doesnāt exist on B).
Scenario A assumed āyour perfect utopia foreverā, so there would be no chance for serious suffering to emerge.
Then that would make Scenario A much more attractive to me (not necessarily from a moral perspective), and I apologize for misunderstanding your hypothetical. To be honest, with the caveat of forever, Iām not sure which scenario Iād prefer. A is certainly much more interesting to me, but my moral calculus pushes me to conclude B is more rational.
I also get that itās an analogy to get me thinking about the deeper issues here, and I understand. My perspective is just that, while I certainly find the philosophy behind this interesting, the issue of AI permanently limiting human potential isnāt hypothetical anymore.
Itās likely to happen in a very short period of time (relative to the total lifespan of the species), unless indefinite delay of AI development really is socio-politically possible (and from what evidence Iāve seen recently, it doesnāt seem to be). [epistemic certainly ā relatively low ā 60%]
Scenario A assumed āyour perfect utopia foreverā, so there would be no chance for serious suffering to emerge.
Then that would make Scenario A much more attractive to me (not necessarily from a moral perspective), and I apologize for misunderstanding your hypothetical. To be honest, with the caveat of forever, Iām not sure which scenario Iād prefer. A is certainly much more interesting to me, but my moral calculus pushes me to conclude B is more rational.
I also get that itās an analogy to get me thinking about the deeper issues here, and I understand. My perspective is just that, while I certainly find the philosophy behind this interesting, the issue of AI permanently limiting human potential isnāt hypothetical anymore.
Itās likely to happen in a very short period of time (relative to the total lifespan of the species), unless indefinite delay of AI development really is socio-politically possible (and from what evidence Iāve seen recently, it doesnāt seem to be). [epistemic certainly ā relatively low ā 60%]