I guess I just think they are valid, and it seems like the predictions have consistently come true. It is my view that the apocalyptic tendencies in the environmentalist movement do not directly parallel religious apocalyptic in the way apocalyptic AI does. However, I could be mistaken.
To clarify my argument it is not the fact that an apocalyptic claim is being made, but rather that the claim is analogous to religious predictions that exist in the same culture that negatively affects its epistemic credibility.
From reading the abstract of this paper it doesn’t seem to be about religious narratives in climate science. I lack access to the paper, if you have a free link I will check it out.
I don’t have a free link but I think it’s freely available somewhere on the internet.
The paper and lots of other research (by Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavksy etc) is, among other things, about the similarity of apocalyptic belief systems found in religious sects and parts of modern environmentalism, so this research seems v relevant to your question.
On your point on predictive accuracy, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Lots of intermediate predictions of climate science have become true, but so have lots of predictions on speed of AI progress, whereas predictions of apocalyptic outcomes have not materialized in either yet.
My point is not that one should not update downwards on AI risk based on worries about doomism being cultural rather than entirely based on objective analysis, just that applying an asymmetrical update in favor of taking climate more seriously seems mistaken given very similar dynamics.
My view is not that religious sects exist within AI and this is a reason to dismiss it.(this would apply equally to climate change) It is that the way apocalyptic AI is framed parallels religious apocalypses and religious narratives around the apocalypse, i.e. virtual heaven, reshaping of the world in the image of a single entity, etc. This simply isn’t to the same degree for climate change.
I don’t agree that apocalyptic outcomes haven’t manifested from climate change yet. Larger and longer hurricane and fire season. The Glaciers melting away. It hasn’t killed us all yet but it certainly looks apocalyptic. Soon entire countries will sink beneath the waves. In fairness with AI this seems like it can’t happen until its the apocalypse so this is apples to oranges.
Religious groups involved in environmentalism are not relevant insofar as they are not claiming to be non-religious(if they are making religious arguments) I guess the argument could be made that in the bible it says there will be more storms before the end and climate change says this but given that this is happening this doesn’t seem to hold.
It is not doomerism that I’m worried about, it’s old religious stories reinventing themselves in secular guesses. Things like the singularity, virtual heavens, space colonization, etc. This doesn’t apply to the concern of AI systems as a group controlling the economy to human detriment, something I am very concerned about.
I guess I just think they are valid, and it seems like the predictions have consistently come true. It is my view that the apocalyptic tendencies in the environmentalist movement do not directly parallel religious apocalyptic in the way apocalyptic AI does. However, I could be mistaken.
To clarify my argument it is not the fact that an apocalyptic claim is being made, but rather that the claim is analogous to religious predictions that exist in the same culture that negatively affects its epistemic credibility.
From reading the abstract of this paper it doesn’t seem to be about religious narratives in climate science. I lack access to the paper, if you have a free link I will check it out.
I don’t have a free link but I think it’s freely available somewhere on the internet.
The paper and lots of other research (by Mary Douglas, Aaron Wildavksy etc) is, among other things, about the similarity of apocalyptic belief systems found in religious sects and parts of modern environmentalism, so this research seems v relevant to your question.
On your point on predictive accuracy, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Lots of intermediate predictions of climate science have become true, but so have lots of predictions on speed of AI progress, whereas predictions of apocalyptic outcomes have not materialized in either yet.
My point is not that one should not update downwards on AI risk based on worries about doomism being cultural rather than entirely based on objective analysis, just that applying an asymmetrical update in favor of taking climate more seriously seems mistaken given very similar dynamics.
My view is not that religious sects exist within AI and this is a reason to dismiss it.(this would apply equally to climate change) It is that the way apocalyptic AI is framed parallels religious apocalypses and religious narratives around the apocalypse, i.e. virtual heaven, reshaping of the world in the image of a single entity, etc. This simply isn’t to the same degree for climate change.
I don’t agree that apocalyptic outcomes haven’t manifested from climate change yet. Larger and longer hurricane and fire season. The Glaciers melting away. It hasn’t killed us all yet but it certainly looks apocalyptic. Soon entire countries will sink beneath the waves. In fairness with AI this seems like it can’t happen until its the apocalypse so this is apples to oranges.
Religious groups involved in environmentalism are not relevant insofar as they are not claiming to be non-religious(if they are making religious arguments) I guess the argument could be made that in the bible it says there will be more storms before the end and climate change says this but given that this is happening this doesn’t seem to hold.
It is not doomerism that I’m worried about, it’s old religious stories reinventing themselves in secular guesses. Things like the singularity, virtual heavens, space colonization, etc. This doesn’t apply to the concern of AI systems as a group controlling the economy to human detriment, something I am very concerned about.
You can find it on sci-hub: https://sci-hub.se/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.09566.x-i1
Ah thank you