Some really cool points here Lee, and I mostly agree with you I think.
Crux: how many actors have terminal preferences for suffering? agency may be amplified for animal advocates, but it could also be amplified for malevolent actors.
This could be very important. I’m not sure what it means for AGI to go well for humans if some of those humans have terminal preferences for suffering / are sadistic. If the AGI protects the rest of us from the sadists, is AGI going well for the sadists?
EDIT: as well as sadists, we can consider humans who think animal agriculture, testing etc. has enough aesthetic/historical/cultural value that it’s worth continuing to do it in a post-AGI world of abundance.
Some really cool points here Lee, and I mostly agree with you I think.
This could be very important. I’m not sure what it means for AGI to go well for humans if some of those humans have terminal preferences for suffering / are sadistic. If the AGI protects the rest of us from the sadists, is AGI going well for the sadists?
EDIT: as well as sadists, we can consider humans who think animal agriculture, testing etc. has enough aesthetic/historical/cultural value that it’s worth continuing to do it in a post-AGI world of abundance.